Macro lens...?

[Professional]

Hey again,

As long i didn't shoot film for a while and also i don't go out much due to summer heat and the traffic i decided that i want to shoot more at home, and the best thing i want to think about is macro and still life and close up shots, so i would like to know what is[are] good lens[es] for macro and close up things? still life can be done with macro or non macro sometimes, but i would focus more on close up and macro smaller things, so can you recommend me something that is sharp?

I am using Shen Hao HZX and i am planning to change it to another model but still not different use anyway, also i still have Speed/Crown Graphic and i may use them sometimes as i never shoot by them yet.

[Emil Schildt]

I have some Zeiss "Luminar" which is supposed to be rather good...

Try and google it..

[Professional]

I have some Zeiss "Luminar" which is supposed to be rather good...

Try and google it..

Ok, i will, thanks!

[Dan Fromm]

With all respect to Emil, the only Luminar that covers 4x5 at magnifications of 1:1 and lower is the 100/6.3. Naturally it is the rarest.

OP, at what range of magnifications do you intend to shoot? If below 1:1 there are quite a number of lenses that will do, especially for trying out shooting at near distances. I say trying out because the technique is somewhat exacting and for many close up applications the benefits of shooting 4x5 instead of 35 mm are somewhat nebulous.

If you want recommendations, consider 150/5.6 Comparon (this is an enlarging Xenar, the cells fit a #0 shutter and it is better at magnifications higher than 1:6 that the equivalent Componon, an enlarging Symmar) or 150/9 G-Claron (also fits a #0 shutter). I can't recommend the 135/4.5 Tominon, which screws into the front of a #1. The Comparon will do fine up to 6:1 reversed, just swap the cells front to rear. The G-Claron is symmetrical, can be used above and below 1:1 in the same orientation.

You might also just try out your normal lens to get a sense of whether shooting closeup suits you.

[Professional]

With all respect to Emil, the only Luminar that covers 4x5 at magnifications of 1:1 and lower is the 100/6.3. Naturally it is the rarest.

OP, at what range of magnifications do you intend to shoot? If below 1:1 there are quite a number of lenses that will do, especially for trying out shooting at near distances. I say trying out because the technique is somewhat exacting and for many close up applications the benefits of shooting 4x5 instead of 35 mm are somewhat nebulous.

If you want recommendations, consider 150/5.6 Comparon (this is an enlarging Xenar, the cells fit a #0 shutter and it is better at magnifications higher than 1:6 that the equivalent Componon, an enlarging Symmar) or 150/9 G-Claron (also fits a #0 shutter). I can't recommend the 135/4.5 Tominon, which screws into the front of a #1. The Comparon will do fine up to 6:1 reversed, just swap the cells front to rear. The G-Claron is symmetrical, can be used above and below 1:1 in the same orientation.

You might also just try out your normal lens to get a sense of whether shooting closeup suits you.

I will try to use my standard/normal lens and see what is missing or what i can figure out, but wanted to know what other options there, and yes, i want to shoot at magnificent of 1:1 if possible, and good with movement i can try to control the Dof or D of focus[plane] as to my taste.

Didn't know that i can use an enlarger lenses for 4x5 cameras too, i don't have any enlarger, and not sure if i can find those lenses you mentioned somewhere, but i am still keep searching and reading about it so hope once i am ready to order then i find something.

I was thinking about something like 180mm macro from Schneider or Rodenstock, but they are expensive and i wasn't sure if they are really worthy, if they are the only options or the best then why not, but before i send money on an expensive lens i should know other alternatives that may give enough great results, even with Canon and Nikon, there are many brands for Macro lenses and Canon/Nikon ones are the most expensive beside Zeiss/Leica.

[rdenney]

At 1:1 you'll need twice the bellows draw of infinity, so make sure you have enough bellows for the focal length of interest.

Most all large-format lenses will do pretty well at 1:1, and the lenses optimized for it are intended for copy work where acutance and resolving power are really critical. For close-ups and still lifes, I don't think a 1:1-optimized lenses makes enough of a difference to be worth it. I would put money in camera support equipment first--that really will make a difference.

Rick "at working apertures and bellows extensions, you might not even need more of a shutter than the lens cap and a stopwatch" Denney

[Ken Lee]

I will try to use my standard/normal lens and see what is missing or what i can figure out...

...I was thinking about something like 180mm macro from Schneider or Rodenstock, but they are expensive and i wasn't sure if they are really worthy...

Good idea. You might find it helpful to read a comment from this recent discussion (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?132334-Advice-on-Bellows-Extension):

"... standard LF lenses, like the standard (and so easy to find) 150 mm lens will provide top-class image quality down to the magnification ratio around 1:2 ; M=0.5 ; i.e. image size = 1/2 of subject size; at least according to high quality standards of professional photography;

But you can of course use them at 1:1; I would even say you should use your standard 150 mm lens down to 1:1 and do as many experiments as you wish before looking for a 120 mm dedicated LF macro lens optimized between magnification ratios 1:5 and 5:1"

[Professional]

Honestly speaking, i hate numbers and mathematics, so studying about bellow values will kill me, i wasn't good at math and very lazy to keep calculation, i just want to place my lens on camera, try to modify the focus with dark cloth or hood or whatever and try to compose and use movements if possible and shoot, i don't think i will be smart enough to figure out the number and values about bellow and lens.

I will give my standard lens a try and see, i did shoot a banana once as a still life and it wasn't bad, i didn't shoot more after that shot, so i will try again and see.

[Greg]

Number of years ago shot macro and micro as a side business. Was able to try out several brands and focal lengths and settled on the following… Macro-Nikkor 35mm f/4.5, Macro-Nikkor 65mm f/4.5, and Macro-Nikkor 12cm f/6.3. Either on a Nikon Multiphot or in the field with a 4x5 Sinar Norma. When maximum depth of field was to be had used a Macro-Topcor 30mm f/3.5 or a Leitz Summar 12cm f/4.5. The 12cm Macro-Nikkor just amazing for shooting flat specimens, but when I required maximum depth of field the 12cm Summar amazingly had the least diffraction at smaller f/stops. Used G-Clarons several times but their smaller maximum apertures made focusing a tad bit harder to do. Present digital focus stacking just blows me away... back when had to construct a lighting source that illuminated the object with a ring of light. Focus on the area lit by the ring of light and then slowly raise the object through the ring of light with the shutter open. Worked but the object would only be lit by a light source that was 90 degrees off the optical axis. The Macro-Nikkors on the open market now command very, very high prices, but they are still can be found in the surplus stores of medical centers and scientific labs for a couple of hundred dollars which is one amazing bargain for these exceptional optics.

[Professional]

Number of years ago shot macro and micro as a side business. Was able to try out several brands and focal lengths and settled on the following… Macro-Nikkor 35mm f/4.5, Macro-Nikkor 65mm f/4.5, and Macro-Nikkor 12cm f/6.3. Either on a Nikon Multiphot or in the field with a 4x5 Sinar Norma. When maximum depth of field was to be had used a Macro-Topcor 30mm f/3.5 or a Leitz Summar 12cm f/4.5. The 12cm Macro-Nikkor just amazing for shooting flat specimens, but when I required maximum depth of field the 12cm Summar amazingly had the least diffraction at smaller f/stops. Used G-Clarons several times but their smaller maximum apertures made focusing a tad bit harder to do. Present digital focus stacking just blows me away... back when had to construct a lighting source that illuminated the object with a ring of light. Focus on the area lit by the ring of light and then slowly raise the object through the ring of light with the shutter open. Worked but the object would only be lit by a light source that was 90 degrees off the optical axis. The Macro-Nikkors on the open market now command very, very high prices, but they are still can be found in the surplus stores of medical centers and scientific labs for a couple of hundred dollars which is one amazing bargain for these exceptional optics.


Even if i plan on one of those, i live in a country that is lack of those lenses, i am sure maybe there is only one lens in my entire country and i will never know where it is, that if there is one actually, and so i only have to order online which may lead me to no luck at all, or to expensive once so then why not go with other brand i know about more than Nikkor for LF.

[Bob Salomon]

Even if i plan on one of those, i live in a country that is lack of those lenses, i am sure maybe there is only one lens in my entire country and i will never know where it is, that if there is one actually, and so i only have to order online which may lead me to no luck at all, or to expensive once so then why not go with other brand i know about more than Nikkor for LF.

There should not be a problem finding lenses in the UAE. Here is the contact information for Rodenstock in the UAE. Ask them.

Somita Trading Co. L.L.C.
No. 208B, Second F
SHEIKH MARYAM Building
SHEIKH MARYAM Str.
P. O. Box 40251
DUBAI

Mr. Ahmad Jabbari (managing Director)
Tel. 00971 422 141 67
Fax 00971 422 141 68
Email: info@somitaco.com

[Professional]

There should not be a problem finding lenses in the UAE. Here is the contact information for Rodenstock in the UAE. Ask them.

Somita Trading Co. L.L.C.
No. 208B, Second F
SHEIKH MARYAM Building
SHEIKH MARYAM Str.
P. O. Box 40251
DUBAI

Mr. Ahmad Jabbari (managing Director)
Tel. 00971 422 141 67
Fax 00971 422 141 68
Email: info@somitaco.com

Thank you very much!

I will give them a try, but i doubt they still sell or deal with Rodenstock anymore, and i have a feeling that they either will tell me they are no longer selling Rodenstock or if they still do then the price is much more than online brand new anywhere.

[Armin Seeholzer]

I can recommend the Rodenstock APO Marcro Sironar 120mm covers 4x5 even at infinity and does not use to much bellows extension at 1:1at around 240mm an has a beautiful rendering of 3D objects!

Find one used and be happy!

[Professional]

I can recommend the Rodenstock APO Marcro Sironar 120mm covers 4x5 even at infinity and does not use to much bellows extension at 1:1at around 240mm an has a beautiful rendering of 3D objects!

Find one used and be happy!

Good, thank you very much

[Drew Wiley]

Depends on what you mean by macro. Are you trying to get images of bug's eyeballs, or more just interested in things like full leaves and flowers? If the latter is
the case, I'd look more at a versatile plastmat lens specially corrected for close-range use, something from the G-Claron series or Fujinon A series, for example, that can still be used for general shooting, including infinity, rather than a very specialized lens restricted to extremely close range use.

[Jim Michael]

You might find this of interest as well http://www.largeformatphotography.info/bellows-factor.html

[Professional]

Depends on what you mean by macro. Are you trying to get images of bug's eyeballs, or more just interested in things like full leaves and flowers? If the latter is
the case, I'd look more at a versatile plastmat lens specially corrected for close-range use, something from the G-Claron series or Fujinon A series, for example, that can still be used for general shooting, including infinity, rather than a very specialized lens restricted to extremely close range use.

Yes, more of the latter and not much into bugs and insects, but flowers, and some details in the garden like the mark on a wood, a crack on a wall, and small stuff at home like spoons, pens, plates,...etc, let's say more into close up textures or tiny interesting items.

Are you giving me just opinions or suggestions more than a recommendation? if so then i can find few options and then i try to decide on one, but i was thinking about more of dedicated lens or a lens that can be used a lot in those close ups and details smaller items, i can use a wide angle lens for macro but it is not designed or used for macro in general, even a lens that is for far subjects could be used for macro, but i wanted a lens that i will keep using it more for macro rather than for portraits or landscapes and such.

[Dan Fromm]

Look, if you're made of money don't compromise. Buy the 120 mm Nikon or Rodenstock macro lens in shutter and don't look back.

If you're not made of money, compromise. As I've said, Comparons are relatively inexpensive and the 105/4.5 and 150/5.6 are both direct fits in a #0 shutter. I've tried both out, neither is the best but both are quite usable and very cost effective.

The advantage of using a lens that fits a #0 is that the #0's tube is the same front and back so swapping cells around to reverse a lens for working at magnifications above 1:1 is easy. The #1 shutter's tube is larger at the front, makes swapping cells front to rear impossible.

[Professional]

Look, if you're made of money don't compromise. Buy the 120 mm Nikon or Rodenstock macro lens in shutter and don't look back.

If you're not made of money, compromise. As I've said, Comparons are relatively inexpensive and the 105/4.5 and 150/5.6 are both direct fits in a #0 shutter. I've tried both out, neither is the best but both are quite usable and very cost effective.

The advantage of using a lens that fits a #0 is that the #0's tube is the same front and back so swapping cells around to reverse a lens for working at magnifications above 1:1 is easy. The #1 shutter's tube is larger at the front, makes swapping cells front to rear impossible.

This is a good details you gave me, so then it will up to me if i made of money or not, some recommend according to weight, others according to price, and many don't put performance as first factor thinking that all aren't able to afford expensive lenses, but i said that before i go to expensive one i see all or most options there if they are rivals or on par or coming closer, i know that all LF lenses are already sharp and high quality even the old ones, but your post here showing what may be a different between a lens of #0 copal/shutter than #1 for example, this is a good factor to consider rather than just giving me 5 options all are cheapo even all 5 aren't the best.

[Greg]

Also consider Componon and Componon-S enlarging lenses. I've seen them going on auction for very little money...

[Dan Fromm]

Greg, I recommended Comparons over Componons because according to Schneider Comparons are better from 2x to 6x than the equivalent jes' plain Componons. That's taking at 1:2 to 1:6. I don't know whether this is true for Componon-Ss.

[Professional]

I saw this lens, is it good then?

Schneider-Kreuznach Comparon F1:5.6 150 MM Enlarger lens

[Professional]

3 lenses of Comparon, 105, 135, and 150

[Dan Fromm]

I have and have tried out 105/4.5 and 150/5.6 Comparons. Both have cells that are direct fits in a #0 shutter. In fact, I've bought several 105s in #0s. The sellers thought they were selling lenses, I thought I was buying shutters.

I shoot 2x3, the 105 is fine for that format but the 150 is better for 4x5.

The 135/4.5 Comparon has cells that are direct fits in a #1 shutter. Fine as long as you're going to shoot no larger than 1:1, in which case you won't need to reverse the lens. Problematic if you're going to work above 1:1.

[Professional]

I have and have tried out 105/4.5 and 150/5.6 Comparons. Both have cells that are direct fits in a #0 shutter. In fact, I've bought several 105s in #0s. The sellers thought they were selling lenses, I thought I was buying shutters.

I shoot 2x3, the 105 is fine for that format but the 150 is better for 4x5.

The 135/4.5 Comparon has cells that are direct fits in a #1 shutter. Fine as long as you're going to shoot no larger than 1:1, in which case you won't need to reverse the lens. Problematic if you're going to work above 1:1.

Well, i can't decide if i will work only for 1:1 and lower, anytime in the future i may decide or plan to go above 1:1 then i have to think about another lens maybe and then to wait to find it and wait to order and be shipped to me.

Until now i still think if i should check one of members recommended me here or wait more, i have time to decide and to order, and i am worried if i wait longer it will lead me to more options here and maybe some lenses i look for will be vanished anywhere even for used ones.

[MBuchmeier]

I just looked at the biggest auction site and there were numerous suitable macro lenses listed. A few names to look for include Macro-nikkor 19, 35, 80, and 120mm, Canon Macrophoto bellows lens 20, 50, 80, 135mm, Olympus macro-bellows lens, Zeiss luminar, leica (Leitz) Photar, Novoflex Novoflexar and many others. There lenses are designed to work at a specific reproductive range, however they will work on formats from 35mm to 4x5 as long as there is sufficient bellows extension. Here is a link to a macro lens database that is informative and quite complete http://www.macrolenses.de

[Bob Salomon]

I just looked at the biggest auction site and there were numerous suitable macro lenses listed. A few names to look for include Macro-nikkor 19, 35, 80, and 120mm, Canon Macrophoto bellows lens 20, 50, 80, 135mm, Olympus macro-bellows lens, Zeiss luminary, leica (Leitz) Photar, Novoflex Noflexar and many others. There lenses are designed to work at a specific reproductive range, however they will work on formats from 35mm to 4x5 as long as there is sufficient bellows extension. Here is a link to a macro lens database that is informative and quite complete http://www.macrolenses.de

It's Zeiss Luminar, not luminary. Novoflexar is a Novoflex. But you also left out some very famous 39mm Leica SM lenses for macro like the Schneider M-Componon series and the Rodenstock Apo Rodagon D series. Additionally, some of the lenses that you did mention can not fit into a 0 size shutter without adapters that are near impossible to find today.

[MBuchmeier]

Thank you for that, I battle constantly with the spell checker. If I type luminar and don't watch carefully, luminary results. Similarly, Dagor becomes Dagger, and so on.
If your look at the list I referenced there are hundreds of macro lenses by dozens of manufacturers, I did not intend my brief post to be an inclusive dissertation.
As for adapters, an RMS adapter will take care of the ones with microscope threads, for others I have had adapters fabricated by a machinist at the University where I work. Usually one adapter
will work for many lenses. The Macro-Nikkor series for example uses only two adapters, RMS for the 19 and 35mm, and M39 screw mount (enlarger lens thread) for the 80 and 120. I had an adapter machined that will screw into a #3 shutter and
holds an adapter with 39mm threads and an RMS adapter that screws into the 39mm screw. The main take home point is that these lenses will work across formats, not just for a single format.

[Tom Monego]

I really like my Nikon 120 f5.6 ED Macro, a large format lens, designed from their macro-photo lenses. As with the Macro Sironar it is easy to get to 1:1. I photographed a lot of medical instruments with it, one was pen sized tip was 1mm across. The folks who did the enlargement couldn't believe how sharp it was. Nice thing about using a 4x5 for macro is the swings and tilt, helps a lot with DOF.

Tom

[Dan Fromm]

Thank you for that, I battle constantly with the spell checker. If I type luminar and don't watch carefully, luminary results. Similarly, Dagor becomes Dagger, and so on.
If your look at the list I referenced there are hundreds of macro lenses by dozens of manufacturers, I did not intend my brief post to be an inclusive dissertation.
As for adapters, an RMS adapter will take care of the ones with microscope threads, for others I have had adapters fabricated by a machinist at the University where I work. Usually one adapter
will work for many lenses. The Macro-Nikkor series for example uses only two adapters, RMS for the 19 and 35mm, and M39 screw mount (enlarger lens thread) for the 80 and 120. I had an adapter machined that will screw into a #3 shutter and
holds an adapter with 39mm threads and an RMS adapter that screws into the 39mm screw. The main take home point is that these lenses will work across formats, not just for a single format.

Hmm. Your recommendations are very interesting. They're all for work at magnifications greater that 1:1. They're also all somewhat expensive. The OP's indicated fairly clearly that he wants to shoot at magnifications lower than 1:1 and that he's not rich.

Re shutters and all that, well female RMS thread-to-#0 or #1 adapters are fairly easily found.

In case you wonder, I have 25, 40 and 63 Luminars, 50 and 100 Neupolars, have had 45 and 90 Mikrotars and 15 and 100 Luminars. I'm slightly acquainted with gear needed for shooting above 1:1.

One of the things that I hate about this forum and APUG is posters' propensity to ignore questions as asked and simply recommend what they know and like instead of what's suitable for the person who asked in the first place. Its very easy to tell other people how to spend their money, much harder to listen to them and understand what they're asking.

Another thing I hate is our tendency to give incomplete answers to questions that want a book length response. Thinking of which, OP, if you want to learn about the gear and techniques you should buy a few books. Lester Lefkowitz' The Manual of Closeup Photography is available at reasonable prices from vendors who advertise through alibris.com, abebooks.com, amazon.com. Brian Bracegirdle's little book Scientific Photomacrography covers the same subjects, is drier. It is #31 in the RMS' Microscopy Handbooks series.

Bob, although the Apo-Rodagon Ds are superb lens their recommended ranges of magnifications are quite small. Suggesting them to a neophyte who doesn't really know what he wants to do seems unkind.

[Peter De Smidt]

Many of the specialized lenses mentioned will not give much, if any, improvement at 1x with 4x5 over something like a 150mm G-Claron, which can be had for less than $200, sometimes significantly less, and it's a very good general purpose lens.

[MBuchmeier]

Agreed, the 120 is a magnificent lens. I used one for Orchids for several years.

[MBuchmeier]

Please spare me your personal insults.

[Bob Salomon]

Hmm. Your recommendations are very interesting. They're all for work at magnifications greater that 1:1. They're also all somewhat expensive. The OP's indicated fairly clearly that he wants to shoot at magnifications lower than 1:1 and that he's not rich.

Re shutters and all that, well female RMS thread-to-#0 or #1 adapters are fairly easily found.

In case you wonder, I have 25, 40 and 63 Luminars, 50 and 100 Neupolars, have had 45 and 90 Mikrotars and 15 and 100 Luminars. I'm slightly acquainted with gear needed for shooting above 1:1.

One of the things that I hate about this forum and APUG is posters' propensity to ignore questions as asked and simply recommend what they know and like instead of what's suitable for the person who asked in the first place. Its very easy to tell other people how to spend their money, much harder to listen to them and understand what they're asking.

Another thing I hate is our tendency to give incomplete answers to questions that want a book length response. Thinking of which, OP, if you want to learn about the gear and techniques you should buy a few books. Lester Lefkowitz' The Manual of Closeup Photography is available at reasonable prices from vendors who advertise through alibris.com, abebooks.com, amazon.com. Brian Bracegirdle's little book Scientific Photomacrography covers the same subjects, is drier. It is #31 in the RMS' Microscopy Handbooks series.

Bob, although the Apo-Rodagon Ds are superb lens their recommended ranges of magnifications are quite small. Suggesting them to a neophyte who doesn't really know what he wants to do seems unkind.
I would not suggest the Apo D for his work. The Apo Macro Sironar 120 or 180 would be perfect. The 120 is what that Doctor used on a Master Technika to make that elephant portfolio sized book of the rarest orchids at the Smithsonian that was sold to someone in Japan for $1,000,000.00 for the first one! And this guy is doing exactly the same thing.

I mentioned the D only because someone else ignored them. And they are macro lenses, although specialized ones.

I should have been more specific, the Dr. Is Jonathon Singer. The book size was double elephant portfolio and the first copy went to the Smithsonian, the second copy was sold to a Japanese business man for $2,500,000.00 not one million. There are only 10 copies of the book and the prints are custom made by Jon Cone.

He bought the camera and lens from Foto Care in NYC so if one has questions they can possibly answer them. He did sell the camera and lens back to the store after the project was finished.

[Dan Fromm]

Bob, I've already told the OP that if he had the money he shouldn't compromise and should get an Apo Macro Sironar or the equivalent AM ED Nikkor.

The only thing that's clear about the OP's intentions is that whatever he/she/it does has to be done indoors. With respect to orchids, well, they come in many sizes. It may be that, especially for smaller ones, the digital approach with focus stacking can give better results than a single shot on film. I'm currrently spending a couple of days a week in our local natural history museum's fish department. They're getting astonishing results with a mid-grade Nikon SLR, a computer controlled focusing stage, and Helicon Focus. Preserved specimens, of course, and well immobilized.

All kidding aside, discussions like this in which people jump in without reading the thread from the beginning and respond to the thread's title rather than to the OP's initial question and subsequent responses to questions about what he/she/it had in mind are very depressing. So much knowledge deployed so inappropriately.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, I've already told the OP that if he had the money he shouldn't compromise and should get an Apo Macro Sironar or the equivalent AM ED Nikkor.

The only thing that's clear about the OP's intentions is that whatever he/she/it does has to be done indoors. With respect to orchids, well, they come in many sizes. It may be that, especially for smaller ones, the digital approach with focus stacking can give better results than a single shot on film. I'm currrently spending a couple of days a week in our local natural history museum's fish department. They're getting astonishing results with a mid-grade Nikon SLR, a computer controlled focusing stage, and Helicon Focus. Preserved specimens, of course, and well immobilized.

All kidding aside, discussions like this in which people jump in without reading the thread from the beginning and respond to the thread's title rather than to the OP's initial question and subsequent responses to questions about what he/she/it had in mind are very depressing. So much knowledge deployed so inappropriately.

I look at it differently, too many answers based on what the poster has experienced,and frequently they have not actually experienced what the OP is trying to do. Also far too many answering with what they can do with what they would be willing to spend without looking to see what the proper tool would do.

That is why there so do many home maybe background supports out there in the USA made from 2x4s instead of the real thing. It may be crude but it accomplishes what they want!

[Dan Fromm]

Bob, I think we're pretty much in agreement. I mean, it always seemed to me that when you were working you recommended products that HP marketed only when the recommendation made sense for the poster whose question you answered.

What's bothered me in this discussion and in many others here is that people recommend tools that are inappropriate because they're not fit for use in the OP's situation even though they're fit for use somewhere else or because they're unobtainable or because they don't fit the OP's budget. Re the last mismatch, telling people to spend money they don't have is much too easy.

[Fr. Mark]

With enough bellows you can make things larger than life on the ground glass of an 8x10 with an 18" projector lens. Or on 4x5 with a cheap 90mm enlarger lens. Or a 150mm f5.6 lens. Will quality (sharpness?) be what you'd get from more expensive lenses? Probably not but cheaper alternatives might teach you a lot along the way for little money. Not all pictures require razor sharpness to be effective.

There are apps for bellows extension and reciprocity correction to take the pain out of the math.

[Professional]

Thanks, i will try my best, first i should use 150mm first, and i will try with the lenses that i bought for Graphic cameras.