How and why to use close-up lenses on large format cameras

[xkaes]

There's an important update to:

www.subclub.org/fujinon/index.htm

Check it out!

[Ken Lee]

Invalid link ?

[xkaes]

Here we go again. It works for me. Try a search for "the world's most complete fujinon large format lens list"


Invalid link ?

[Dan Fromm]

The link works for me, Ken. This http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/close-up.htm should take you to the article.

Interesting, Xkaes. Why is it that LF photographers seem not to use close-up lenses? And why is it that manuals of closeup photography (except those for beginners with 35 mm cameras) rarely mention closeup lenses when discussing how to get the magnification? Getting away from closeup photography, why do none of us seem to use diopters to convert long lenses into shorter ones? I mean, short lenses with much coverage can be ungodly expensive, using a cheap diopter on a relatively inexpensive longer lens has great appeal.

Are we unaware of the possibilities or is the approach not very good?

[Corran]

Yep, here we go again - that site is still broken for some people (me included).

Dan, does coverage change w/ a diopter? If not, that would indeed be an interesting approach. What would happen with, say, an ultrawide lens, with an additional diopter??

I don't have any that are large enough for my lenses so I can't test.

[diversey]

It works for me. Thanks!

[xkaes]

There are limitations but much depends on your gear any purposes.

1. I have a 47mm XL and I can put a #1 CU on it and can barely focus to infinity because of my bellows limitation (my gear). Also, if you have all the lenses you need they will, of course provide sharper results, but for low powered CU lenses you might not notice any difference. On long lenses, tele lenses and wide-angles and higher power CU lenses you are more likely to notice it. But it a good way to stretch the gear that you have.

2. Most people don't have soft-focus lenses because they would not use it much. But CU lenses are a cheap alternative.


Yep, here we go again - that site is still broken for some people (me included).

Dan, does coverage change w/ a diopter? If not, that would indeed be an interesting approach. What would happen with, say, an ultrawide lens, with an additional diopter??

I don't have any that are large enough for my lenses so I can't test.

[Corran]

1. I have a 47mm XL and I can put a #1 CU on it and can barely focus to infinity because of my bellows limitation (my gear).

So, with the CU lens, does it have a wider FoV? I'm just curious here. I also have the 47XL.

If such a thing works reasonably well, I could see myself using this "trick" in certain situations on different formats where I don't have a wider lens.

[Drew Wiley]

With Fuji, it was the "A" series best engineered for close work, though they are superb performers at all distances, including infinity. But they did not offer a specialty LF macro lens like Nikon did. It just depends on what you mean by closeup. It you photographing diamond rings or the eyeball of a housefly, something
true "macro" or even "micro" might be called for. But "A" Fujis will do excellently at 1:3 and OK at 1:1.

[xkaes]

The coverage should change with a CU lens. Just as the coverage in front of the lens increases, the coverage behind it should as well. Whether you could use it would depend on how wide your shutter aperture is -- and perhaps other things.


Yep, here we go again - that site is still broken for some people (me included).

Dan, does coverage change w/ a diopter? If not, that would indeed be an interesting approach. What would happen with, say, an ultrawide lens, with an additional diopter??

I don't have any that are large enough for my lenses so I can't test.

[xkaes]

A CU lens increases the field of view, just like putting on a shorter focal length lens. See the table on the website.




So, with the CU lens, does it have a wider FoV? I'm just curious here. I also have the 47XL.

If such a thing works reasonably well, I could see myself using this "trick" in certain situations on different formats where I don't have a wider lens.

[xkaes]

I have a Fuji A 180, but I only use it to 1:1. At that point it has used up all my bellows (360mm)! After that I switch to a Minolta 100mm f4 bellows lens which at that magnification covers the 4x5 just fine.


With Fuji, it was the "A" series best engineered for close work, though they are superb performers at all distances, including infinity. But they did not offer a specialty LF macro lens like Nikon did. It just depends on what you mean by closeup. It you photographing diamond rings or the eyeball of a housefly, something
true "macro" or even "micro" might be called for. But "A" Fujis will do excellently at 1:3 and OK at 1:1.

[Corran]

I can't, the website doesn't work here :).

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, does coverage change w/ a diopter? If not, that would indeed be an interesting approach. What would happen with, say, an ultrawide lens, with an additional diopter?

Bryan, I don't know. I expect that coverage doesn't change. This by analogy with convertible lenses, where the complete lens has the same coverage as a single cell. But my opinion isn't well-founded.

I don't recall ever reading an account of an LF lens with a diopter in front being used as an, um, wider angle lens. You'd think that since doing this costs little if it worked well many people would do it. Similarly, really wide angle lenses' cross sections are nothing like that of a plain ordinary ol' lens with a meniscus in front. There has to be a reason why lens makers don't use this approach.

[Corran]

My assumption was that the relative FoV would widen but the IC would shrink accordingly, but that's based on nothing but speculation.

Thinking about it, I can try this with one of my MF view camera lenses that can take the small CU lenses I have, and see the effect on my 4x5 GG. I'll report back.

[Maris Rusis]

Corran, you are right. The image circle on my favourite 8x10 lens, a Fujinon-W 300mm f5.6, shrinks when I put a +1 dioptre close-up lens on it to convert it to a 250mm. The 300mm swallows 8x10 but the 250mm just covers. There is focus shift due to the spherical abberation of the +1 dioptre. And there's field curvature. I focus two stops down from wide open which takes care of most of the abberations then I stop down to f64 to get the corners sharp enough for contact work.

The alternative approach, putting negative dioptres on a view camera lens to convert them to a longer focal lengths, works too; with the usual precautions about abberations.

[Mark Sawyer]

Corran, you are right. The image circle on my favourite 8x10 lens, a Fujinon-W 300mm f5.6, shrinks when I put a +1 dioptre close-up lens on it to convert it to a 250mm. The 300mm swallows 8x10 but the 250mm just covers. There is focus shift due to the spherical abberation of the +1 dioptre. And there's field curvature. I focus two stops down from wide open which takes care of most of the abberations then I stop down to f64 to get the corners sharp enough for contact work.

The alternative approach, putting negative dioptres on a view camera lens to convert them to a longer focal lengths, works too; with the usual precautions about abberations.

Coverage shrinks with reduction in focal length. You may also lose a little more due to mechanical vignetting from adding any filter, but especially so with filters that have a deeper housing, such as achromatic diopters.

If someone is looking for a cheap 4x5 close-up lens, I'd suggest a 90-135mm enlarging lens. These will get rid of most aberrations, have a flat field, be optimized for close distances, and go for peanuts these days.

[AtlantaTerry]

If someone is looking for a cheap 4x5 close-up lens, I'd suggest a 90-135mm enlarging lens. These will get rid of most aberrations, have a flat field, be optimized for close distances, and go for peanuts these days.

But... wouldn't the enlarging lens need to be mounted in reverse on the lens board? That is, for closeup work the rear of the lens would need to be closest to the subject.

[Mark Sawyer]

But... wouldn't the enlarging lens need to be mounted in reverse on the lens board? That is, for closeup work the rear of the lens would need to be closest to the subject.

Yes, but where you turn it around for close-ups depends on the level of magnification and the lens, as different enlarging lenses have different criteria. For example, Schneider's Comparon is optimized for enlargements in the 2×-6× range, while their Componar-S is optimized for enlargements in the 6×-10× range. So reversed, they're actually a stronger macro than 1:1. When you'd want to flip it for distance work I'm not sure, but would guess around that 1:1 range, and I'd expect so-so performance at best at infinity. But "optimization" can be pretty minimal; many use process lenses and macro lenses at far distances with excellent results. It's that "normal" lens with a diopter stuck on front that truly compromises a lens at any distance.

(Mind you, I said "theoretically". As Yogi Berra said, "In theory, there's no difference between practice and theory. In practice, there is." But I think the theoretical would hold, and the enlarger lens would be better for close up work. For just shortening the focal length but still working at a distance, I don't know. Either option is a compromise, but either might work for someone on a budget who isn't pushing the enlargement too much or isn't concerned with hyper-fine detail.)

[LabRat]

Coverage shrinks with reduction in focal length. You may also lose a little more due to mechanical vignetting from adding any filter, but especially so with filters that have a deeper housing, such as achromatic diopters.

If someone is looking for a cheap 4x5 close-up lens, I'd suggest a 90-135mm enlarging lens. These will get rid of most aberrations, have a flat field, be optimized for close distances, and go for peanuts these days.

Many standard enlarging lenses will work best at normal enlargement ratios, and ALMOST to 1:1, but hit a wall at 1:1... Simple solution??? Add one of those +1 close-up's and 1:1 is yours... (I learned this setting up duping cameras...)

Steve K

[Willie]

The quality of the diopter makes a big difference. The cheap sets don't cost much and don't perform very well. The more expensive types such as Nikon and B+W are much higher quality and can work well - depending on the lens used.

[Dan Fromm]

But... wouldn't the enlarging lens need to be mounted in reverse on the lens board? That is, for closeup work the rear of the lens would need to be closest to the subject.

There's no magic even though some of us go all mystical about when to reverse a lens. Enlarging lenses (nearly all taking lenses) are optimized for small negative behind the lens and large print (subject) in front of the lens. When shooting above 1:1 (making a reduction) the large negative is behind the lens and the small subject (print) is in front. Reversing an asymmetrical lens when shooting above 1:1 makes best use of the lens' optimization. That's the rule.

Some lenses really are perfectly symmetrical. Dialyte type Apo Nikkors, for example, according to Nikon, Apo Saphirs according to Boyer. I've never understood why these makers sold the lenses with mounting threads at both ends. With Apo Saphirs, which are heliar types and can't have the diaphragm in the middle, the diaphragm's position may make a difference but in my simple tests it didn't.

Mark, per Schneider Comparons are better at lower magnifications than at higher magnifications. Componar-S and Componons are better at higher magnifications than at lower. Schneider insinuates that Comparons are better than the others for making small prints, then points out that all of their enlarging lenses are usable at all magnifications. Lose no sales, their motto.

In the '70s Modern Photography ran an series of educational articles on roughly a two year cycle. "Which is better? Closeup lens or an extension tube?" ran every other year. The answer was always the same. Which is preferable depends on the lens used (they tried out ~ 50 mm lenses for 35 mm SLRs). The only way to find out which approach to shooting closeup (reduce focal length, add extension) is to try both. Shortly after I started taking pictures I gave up on using Nikon diopters on a 50/1.4, bought a 55/3.5 MicroNikkor and haven't looked back.

[Jim Jones]

. . . With Apo Saphirs, which are heliar types and can't have the diaphragm in the middle, the diaphragm's position may make a difference but in my simple tests it didn't. . . .

I once had the not-so-bright idea of reversing the lens cells in a 90mm Optar WA for micro photography. This displaced the diaphragm some relative distance from the cells, and a sharp image was impossible to make.

[Drew Wiley]

Adding a simple screw-on closeup lens to a view camera lens, like people do for budget 35mm work, is really hokey compared to using an appropriate lens to begin with.

[xkaes]

Wouldn't it be nice to have a formula to know, at least approximately, how much a given diopter would reduce the image circle, such as NEW IC = OLD IC / (DIOPTER X ?).


Corran, you are right. The image circle on my favourite 8x10 lens, a Fujinon-W 300mm f5.6, shrinks when I put a +1 dioptre close-up lens on it to convert it to a 250mm. The 300mm swallows 8x10 but the 250mm just covers. There is focus shift due to the spherical abberation of the +1 dioptre. And there's field curvature. I focus two stops down from wide open which takes care of most of the abberations then I stop down to f64 to get the corners sharp enough for contact work.

The alternative approach, putting negative dioptres on a view camera lens to convert them to a longer focal lengths, works too; with the usual precautions about abberations.

[Drew Wiley]

That wouldn't tell you the manner in which the diopter messes up the characteristics of the alleged image circle. An it will. A simple experiment or two will tell you
that. Lens formulas are designed to do certain things correctly. What this amounts to is asking a crocodile to wear plastic dentures.

[BetterSense]

With large format closeup photography I have had the most trouble with the camera getting in the way of the lighting. That, plus reciprocity failure, are my biggest issues with LF. I have had good luck with many lenses. ..even 35mm lenses reversed work. I have a 180mm RB67 lens with broken shutter that works great.

[Drew Wiley]

Some enlarger lenses work well. Although they're rare, Schneider once offered Componons in shutter for close-range use, even though they're normally associated with enlarging. There's tons of info out there on this kind of thing, including lighting. A number of photographers specialize in it. If I got in the game, the Sinar system would be ideal because you can add extension rails and bellows sections as far as you wish. I seen this done up to eight or ten feet long for 8x10 micro work, obviously supported by something serious, in this case, by an actual steel structural beam. Nikon has annual micro photography contests for the truly devoted, and sheet film adapter for this kind of thing are still around and apparently still in demand. I'd probably reach for one of my shorter Apo Nikkor barrel lenses to test on 8x10. It's a big temptation.

[dave_whatever]

I have used a Nikon 5T closeup filter on a 150mm symmar-s when I was shooting with a 6x7 back on a camera that only had 190mm of bellows, I think it got me to about half life size, and seemed sharp enough. This was shot with that combination:

http://www.daveparryphotography.co.uk/photo12830728.html

[Drew Wiley]

Right now I'm wearing reading glasses that cost around twelve bucks for three pair. Plenty good for viewing web images. That's about all you're doing by placing
a closeup diopter over a camera lens. Just a reading monocle. It's fine for fun work or web presentation, but hardly ideal. Even in 35mm work you'll do far better witha dedicated macro lens. I've done 8x10 near-macro shots in the field which held more detail in a 40X60 inch Ciba print than you could discern nose to nose wearing reading glasses. But that kind of stunt in contingent upon a relatively flat image plane, something rare in nature. In a studio, people shoot thru polished rock sections or leaves pressed between glass, etc.

[Dan Fromm]

Some enlarger lenses work well. Although they're rare, Schneider once offered Componons in shutter for close-range use, even though they're normally associated with enlarging. I have some of these beastlets (75 mm in #00, 105 mm in #0) and equivalents from D.O.I. (105 mm in #0). All came from mug shot cameras. I bought 'em for the shutters. One was even in a cock and shoot #0. Who'd a thunk it?

[Maris Rusis]

Wouldn't it be nice to have a formula to know, at least approximately, how much a given diopter would reduce the image circle, such as NEW IC = OLD IC / (DIOPTER X ?).

Try this formula: (New focal length/Old focal length) X Old image circle = New image circle. Do check the mathematics to see if the approximation is good enough for you. What would suggest for a more exact calculation?

"New focal length" in the above formula is the result of adding a supplementary lens (positive or negative dioptre) to the original "Old focal length " lens.

[Dan Fromm]

Too late to edit. Mental lapse. My beastlets (see post # 31 above) are Comparons, not Componons. Oops!

[bradyvictor161]

There's an important update to:


Check it out!
Your link is not working at my browser