4x5: If I don't have a macro type lens, what's the next alternative?

[ericantonio]

So looks like a smaller'ish lens is better for getting close right? (I'm so darn technical man!). So if I don't have a real macro lens (i have plenty in 35mm :) ), the best I can do is use my 135mm and just go long bellows right? Are there any cheap barrel type lenses I can play around with? I saw these really cool flashes/LED things on Amazon, looks like little antennas for macros. Thought it would be fun to use. They are like 20-30 bucks.

I know the next step is to try my 90mm wide angle, will try that later maybe tonight, but if anyone knows right away that that's a waste of time, let me know.

[djdister]

You should look for a copy camera (process) lens in the 150-200mm range, which can be found in barrel configurations quite frequently. Look for G-Claron, Apo-Nikkor, or similar lenses. Using a wide angle lens like a 90mm for macro work will give somewhat distorted results, which may or may not be what you are after.

[ericantonio]

Y Using a wide angle lens like a 90mm for macro work will give somewhat distorted results, which may or may not be what you are after.

That's what I thought! Thanks for clearing that up.


You should look for a copy camera (process) lens in the 150-200mm range, which can be found in barrel configurations quite frequently. Look for G-Claron, Apo-Nikkor, or similar lenses.
Sweet, sounds like plan for the next year or so. Thanks!!!

[xkaes]

The "on the cheap" ways for very close-up/macro work in 4x5 are:

#1: Add extension if you can -- to whatever lens you are using

#2: Use whatever enlarging lenses you have -- they are flat field and produce great results

#3: Use your 35mm macro lens -- at higher magnifications they will cover 4x5 (see: http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/mygear.htm)

[ericantonio]

The "on the cheap" ways for very close-up/macro work in 4x5 are:

#1: Add extension if you can -- to whatever lens you are using

#2: Use whatever enlarging lenses you have -- they are flat field and produce great results

#3: Use your 35mm macro lens -- at higher magnifications they will cover 4x5 (see: http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/mygear.htm)

Great info!!

Sadly, I sold all my enlarger/wet darkroom stuff.

[Ken Lee]

Macro and process lenses are great, but it all depends on how much you need to enlarge the resulting image, whether you have access to a digital workflow and are competent at sharpening. Ordinary non-macro lenses can be quite good, right up close - and a modern lens is not always required either.

I made this (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/scanning/index.php#theoryAndPractice) 32x40 inch enlargement from a 4x5 negative shot with a 70-year-old Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar lens, not a modern macro lens by any stretch.

Although sections of the image are purposely blurred, the in-focus areas are perfectly sharp, right up close.

[xkaes]

Great info!!

Sadly, I sold all my enlarger/wet darkroom stuff.

You can get some great enlarging lenses on EBAY for little more than the cost of shipping.

[ericantonio]

You can get some great enlarging lenses on EBAY for little more than the cost of shipping.

Yeah, I had wonderful Kodak ektar ones before in about 135mm size. They were so nice. Will have to start looking for some.

[ericantonio]

Macro and process lenses are great, but it all depends on how much you need to enlarge the resulting image, whether you have access to a digital workflow and are competent at sharpening. Ordinary non-macro lenses can be quite good, right up close - and a modern lens is not always required either.

I made this (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/scanning/index.php#theoryAndPractice) 32x40 inch enlargement from a 4x5 negative shot with a 70-year-old Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar lens, not a modern macro lens by any stretch.

Although sections of the image are purposely blurred, the in-focus areas are perfectly sharp, right up close.

These are great. I do remember seeing this webpage. Bookmarked now for Vuescan tips!

[Pere Casals]

So looks like a smaller'ish lens is better for getting close right? (I'm so darn technical man!). So if I don't have a real macro lens (i have plenty in 35mm :) ), the best I can do is use my 135mm and just go long bellows right? Are there any cheap barrel type lenses I can play around with? I saw these really cool flashes/LED things on Amazon, looks like little antennas for macros. Thought it would be fun to use. They are like 20-30 bucks.

I know the next step is to try my 90mm wide angle, will try that later maybe tonight, but if anyone knows right away that that's a waste of time, let me know.


Depending on the magnifiction you target... I'd recommend using reversed an EL Nikkor 50mm enlarging lens for 1:1. Awesome results. Reversed, it covers 4x5. http://extreme-macro.co.uk/el-nikkor-50mm-28n/

Single problem would be shutter, you would need to improvise one.

[R.K]

Plus diopter lenses can be used for macro with any large format lenses successfully and they are not expensive at B&H.

[ericantonio]

Depending on the magnifiction you target... I recommend using reversed an EL Nikkor 50mm enlarging lens for 1:1. Awesome results. Reversed, it covers 4x5. http://extreme-macro.co.uk/el-nikkor-50mm-28n/

Single problem would be shutter, you would need to improvise one.

Wow, that's great info thank you!!!
I worked in a studio in NYC for a while (pre-digital) and I've worked with a lot of broken shutters! Lots of pops or lots of seconds. Thanks!

[xkaes]

Single problem would be shutter, you would need to improvise one.

I wouldn't call it a problem. Here is a Fujinon 90mm f5.6 enlarging lens (left) and 35mm f4 Schnieder Componon on #1 shutters:

168916

One note -- if your enlarging lens has an illuminated f-stop, you need to temporarily cover up the light pipe(s) with opaque tape on the REAR of the lens.

[xkaes]

Plus diopter lenses can be used for macro with any large format lenses successfully and they are not expensive at B&H.

Good point! Note that the greater the diopter, the greater the distortion/blurring of the edges/chromatic aberrations,etc.

[Pere Casals]

I wouldn't call it a problem. Here is a Fujinon 90mm f5.6 enlarging lens (left) and 35mm f4 Schnieder Componon on #1 shutters:

168916

One note -- if your enlarging lens has an illuminated f-stop, you need to temporarily cover up the light pipe(s) with opaque tape on the REAR of the lens.

Great idea, anyway to reverse it a suitable reversing ring can be used...

[xkaes]

Great idea, anyway to reverse it a suitable reversing ring can be used...

Normally not a problem. Unfortunately, there are some great enlarging lenses that don't have a front thread, so a little improvisation might be needed.

And since many (most?) enlarging lenses are symmetrical, reversing them accomplishes nothing. It's best to check your lens' design before you go to any unnecessary trouble.

[Pere Casals]

Normally not a problem. Unfortunately, there are some great enlarging lenses that don't have a front thread, so a little improvisation might be needed.

And since many (most?) enlarging lenses are symmetrical, reversing them accomplishes nothing. It's best to check your lens' design before you go to any unnecessary trouble.

The EL-Nikkor 50mm 2.8 in particular it is not symetric... anyway if used at 1:1 I see no reason to reverse it...

[Neal Chaves]

I photographed stamps and coins for a large national company on 4X5 and 6X9 with a monorail view camera and 90mm and 65mm Super Angulon lenses. I don't think I could have done any better with special macro lenses and the client was very happy.

[Greg]

Polaroid marketed a copy camera and stand called the Polaroid MP-4. For lenses it used Tominion optics mounted in a self cocking Copal shutter. They actually were quite fine optics to be had at very reasonable prices back then. I believe they came in focal lengths of 17mm, 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, 105mm and 135mm. For Photomicrography they all covered the 4x5 format at different close ranges. Have only owned and used the 75mm and the 105mm lenses (back when) to copy hand drawn line graphs on Kodalith 2566 film and they never let me down. You can find them on the BIG auction site for very little money. I have bought a few for around $25 just for the shutters to be used with LF and ULF pinhole cameras.

[Drew Bedo]

WhenI started out in LF I was on a shoe string. My outfit was based on a Burk and James 5x7 with a reducing back.I shot some macro set-ups with a lens salvaged from an oscilloscope camera (75mm f/1.9). This is not a recommended lens, but I got it for under $50 and f/1.9 allowed me to see the subjecton the GG when at max extension. I focused wide open but stopped down to get some (any) DOF. Using a couple of Vivitar strobes some exposures took 7 to 10 "pops".

It was fun to do and like I said . . .a frayed shoe string!

[xkaes]

Polaroid marketed a copy camera and stand called the Polaroid MP-4. For lenses it used Tominion optics.

Tominon lenses were the "House Brand" made by the optical company, Tomioka (founded in 1924). ALL of Yashica's photographic lenses -- from their beginning in 1953 -- were made by Tomioka which eventually merged with Yashica in 1968. Many of their lenses are considered to be some of the best in the world.

Here’s a technical review of just four of Tomioka's Yashica DX lenses from 1972. Of the 50 test points only five (10%) were rated lower than “Very Good”, and only one (2%) was rated below “Good”. In fact, 39 of the 50 test points (78%) were rated as “Excellent”. It’s difficult to do any better than that!

168929

But Tomioka also made lenses for many camera companies other than Yashica such as Polaroid, Chinon, Ricoh, Cosina, and Contax/Zeiss. Many of the famous Contax RTS T* lenses, although designed by Zeiss, were manufactured by Tomioka.

[Drew Bedo]

Are the Tominon lenses made for the Polaroid MP-3/4 copy cameras any good for macro work?

I have a 75mm Tominon that came from an MP-4.

[Dan Fromm]

Drew, the 135/4.5 MP-4 Tominons are mediocre. This based on my tests of three examples. The 75/4.5 I had and tested wasn't that good either.

I've had and tested all of the MP-4 Tominons except the 105. The 50/4.5 and shorter aren't best in class but are quite usable.

[ericantonio]

I wouldn't call it a problem. Here is a Fujinon 90mm f5.6 enlarging lens (left) and 35mm f4 Schnieder Componon on #1 shutters:

168916

One note -- if your enlarging lens has an illuminated f-stop, you need to temporarily cover up the light pipe(s) with opaque tape on the REAR of the lens.

Wow, didn't know you can attach an enlarger lens to a Copal like that. Was that extreme McGuyverism or just very expensive tooling at Grimes?

[Jim Galli]

With bellows extension, a shutter is probably the last thing you'll need. Old enlarger lenses are ubiquitous and practically valueless now.

[xkaes]

Wow, didn't know you can attach an enlarger lens to a Copal like that. Was that extreme McGuyverism or just very expensive tooling at Grimes?

This is hardly anything extreme. It's simply a step-down ring from the front thread of a Copal #1 (40mm) to the rear thread of MOST enlarging lenses (39mm). That's not like getting the Palestinians and Israelis together, for Pete's sake. We are talking about ONE millimeter. I have two Copal #1 to Leica adapters. I probably paid $20 for each -- TOPS. I sold a Copal #3s to Leica adapter on EBAY a few weeks ago. I've never seen a Copal #0 or #00 to Leica adapter, but who knows. I have no idea who made/makes them, but I'm sure Grimes would be willing to help. Check out:

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/close-up.htm (http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/close-up.htm)

[xkaes]

With bellows extension, a shutter is probably the last thing you'll need. Old enlarger lenses are ubiquitous and practically valueless now.

Sure, much depends on the amount of extension and the focal length & aperture of the lens, but I've found a shutter EXTREMELY convenient 99% of the time. And then there is the use of flash which is common in close-up/macro work.

And yes, old enlarger lenses are ubiquitous, but if your head is screwed on right, that just makes them more valuable now.

[Jim Galli]

And yes, old enlarger lenses are ubiquitous, but if your head is screwed on right, that just makes them more valuable now.

LOL, my head is a left hand thread, so it doesn't screw on right. Been around a long time.

[Bob Salomon]

Sure, much depends on the amount of extension and the focal length & aperture of the lens, but I've found a shutter EXTREMELY convenient 99% of the time. And then there is the use of flash which is common in close-up/macro work.

And yes, old enlarger lenses are ubiquitous, but if your head is screwed on right, that just makes them more valuable now.
Using your specs it would be difficult. The mounting thread for a Copal 1 is 39x0.75. Not 40mm.

[xkaes]

Using your specs it would be difficult. The mounting thread for a Copal 1 is 39x0.75. Not 40mm.

I don't know where you get your specs, but try this. Put an enlarging lens with a 39mm thread into the front of a Copal #1 shutter. It willl go straight in and wiggle just a tiny bit because it is smaller than the Copal #1 front thread.

And if what you are saying is true then I don't need an adapter at all and I wasted my $20. DAMN!!!

[Dan Fromm]

Using your specs it would be difficult. The mounting thread for a Copal 1 is 39x0.75. Not 40mm.

Bob, please see http://www.skgrimes.com/products/new-copal-shutters/standardcopals

[Bob Salomon]

I don't know where you get your specs, but try this. Put an enlarging lens with a 39mm thread into the front of a Copal #1 shutter. It willl go straight in and wiggle just a tiny bit because it is smaller than the Copal #1 front thread.

And if what you are saying is true then I don't need an adapter at all and I wasted my $20. DAMN!!!
That is because a 39mm Leica thread has a different thread pitch then a 39 0.75 Copal shutter.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, please see http://www.skgrimes.com/products/new-copal-shutters/standardcopals

See
https://www.google.com/search?q=copal%201%20shutter%20size&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[ericantonio]

You guys cracking me up. You need some Dale Carnegie in your lives :)

Anyway, I managed to find a 127 Ysarex? Rodenstock lens in a Polaroid shutter. I'm pretty sure that covers 4x5 right? I'll start out with that. I got a bunch of Technica lensboards around.

When I had a medium format (and then I was like film? nobody gonna use film anymore, I stupidly sold it all), I was doing some macros with food. So I'll try that again with this lens.

You guys are all awesome and have so much information to give. Thumbs up to all of you!!

[Dan Fromm]

See
https://www.google.com/search?q=copal%201%20shutter%20size&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Mount thread, Bob, not the front of the lens tube.

[Dan Fromm]

You guys cracking me up. You need some Dale Carnegie in your lives :)

Anyway, I managed to find a 127 Ysarex? Rodenstock lens in a Polaroid shutter. I'm pretty sure that covers 4x5 right? I'll start out with that. I got a bunch of Technica lensboards around.

When I had a medium format (and then I was like film? nobody gonna use film anymore, I stupidly sold it all), I was doing some macros with food. So I'll try that again with this lens.

You guys are all awesome and have so much information to give. Thumbs up to all of you!!

I'm sure its been said earlier in this discussion, but if you're going to work at magnifications below 1:1 mounting the lens normally will let it work as well as it can. But above 1:1 the lens should be reversed to get the most benefit from its corrections. Reverse mounting a lens in a #1 is difficult. The front and rear tubes are different sizes so swapping cells from front to rear is impossible. Mounting the lens/shutter backwards on the board puts the shutter and controls inside the camera. An oops! if ever there was one. Food macros sounds like low magnification work.

[plaubel]

I screwed a Schneider Compnon S enlarging lens into a Copal shutter, which gives me excellent macros on 12x16" prints. Didn't make bigger prints, but it seems to be possible.
I found that my Nikkor 150W does the same job, both without reversing.
My Symmar 150mm feels good at macro, too.


Ritchie

[xkaes]

I'm sure its been said earlier in this discussion, but if you're going to work at magnifications below 1:1 mounting the lens normally will let it work as well as it can. But above 1:1 the lens should be reversed to get the most benefit from its corrections.

Before using the generally-accepted rule-of-thumb about lens reversal -- assuming you actually can -- make sure your lens is asymmetrical. If it is symmetrical -- and lots of enlarging lenses are -- you will not gain anything. And for NON-enlarging lenses, such as the Fujinon A series lenses, they are designed for close-ups, and they are symmetrical, so reversing them is a complete exercise in futility.

[xkaes]

That is because a 39mm Leica thread has a different thread pitch then a 39 0.75 Copal shutter.

168973

[Greg]

Drew, the 135/4.5 MP-4 Tominons are mediocre. This based on my tests of three examples. The 75/4.5 I had and tested wasn't that good either.

I've had and tested all of the MP-4 Tominons except the 105. The 50/4.5 and shorter aren't best in class but are quite usable.

Your statement made me think back of when we used Tominions to photograph hand drawn line graphs back in the late 1970s. First off the prints we printed for scientific journal publication were usually 5x7s. We Photographed the line drawings on Kodalith 2566 film and always got sharp lines which in retrospect was not a measure of the lenses resolution. Also came back to me that we purchased a dozen of Tominion lenses, tested them, returned 11 of them, and kept the best one. When we started to do more critical copy work and larger enlarged prints, especially when reproducing fine lines and a gray scale, I switched to a Leitz 12cm Summar custom mounted in an electronic shutter. Have fond memories of using Tominion lenses, but you are right... as a whole they are "mediocre" lenses. But Oh those self cocking Copal shutters that they were mounted in are deals to be had of little money. Have owned and used probably dozens of them over the years and had only one fail. If you do pinhole or zone plate photography, those shutters will be your best friends...

[xkaes]

I screwed a Schneider Compnon S enlarging lens into a Copal shutter,

How did you accomplish this?

[Dan Fromm]

How did you accomplish this?

PMFJI. Joe, some sizes of Comparons, Componons and Componon-Ss have cells that are direct fits in standard shutters.

On another topic, you've mentioned that enlarging lenses are, in general, symmetric and don't have to be reversed when shooting above 1:1 or making reductions. Even setting aside tessar types, which are highly asymmetric, plasmat types are optimized for printing, generally for printing not all that large. 6x to 12x covers most of them. This requires asymmetry. Lenses that are really symmetrical are optimized for 1:1.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Since you've got the gear in 135 format to do macro, you owe it to yourself to at least investigate what is being done the past decade or so with focus stacking. The depth of field possibilities with small format macro lenses shot at f/stop sweet-spots for extreme resolution are pretty astounding. It's relatively simple to combine slices of images like an electron microscope scan in Photoshop nowadays. Compare this to the many challenges of 4x5 shooting macro at effective apertures often to f/90 and f/128 at rather shakey levels of extension. Macro is one of several reasons large format is no longer optimal for many kinds of commercial work. Even those who still love process and revere film for what it does best --as I do-- ought to be aware of the areas where LF has been surpassed

[xkaes]

PMFJI. Joe, some sizes of Comparons, Componons and Componon-Ss have cells that are direct fits in standard shutters.


Yes, that slipped my mind. The only Componon I have is a 28mm and it is NOT "convertible". I assume this feature only occurred on some of the longer lenses. I know that Computar made some enlarger lenses designed to do the same thing -- perhaps other manufacturers did as well. VERY handy indeed!!!

[Leigh]

The mounting thread for a Copal 1 is 39x0.75. Not 40mm.Sorry, Bob...
Not rue.

Per the Copal #1 shutter data sheet as provided by the manufacturer,
the front thread is 40mm with a 0.75mm pitch.

http://www.atwaterkent.info/Images/Doc_Copal1Specs.png

- Leigh

[Leigh]

So looks like a smaller'ish lens is better for getting close right?Actually, I prefer a bit longer lens for close-ups.

You can use any lens.
Macro lenses are optimized for close-up work (reproduction ratios of 10:1 or less, down to 1:1) as compared with regular lenses which are optimized for more distant work (reproduction rations of 20:1 or greater).

But all lenses will produce images of all subjects at all distances.
You might get slightly better results with a macro lens, but the difference is slight, not huge.

- Leigh

[ericantonio]

You can use any lens.
Macro lenses are optimized for close-up work (reproduction ratios of 10:1 or less, down to 1:1) as compared with regular lenses which are optimized for more distant work (reproduction rations of 20:1 or greater).

- Leigh

I think this is what I was confused about. I guess in the LF world, any lens would work cause we have bellows. So I'll play around with my new Ysaron 127mm.

[Leigh]

Hi Eric,

The critical thing with LF work is your maximum bellows exrension.

There's a simple rule that holds for all lenses:
For a 1:1 reproduction ratio, the bellows extension from infinity focus equals the lens focal length.

So your maximum bellows extension, and whether you can add bellows like on studio cameras, determines your maximum reproduction ratio with any particular lens.

- Leigh

[xkaes]

Actually, I prefer a bit longer lens for close-ups.

Much depends on how much bellows you have and how much magnification you want to achieve. With my 180mm Fujinon A and 360mm of extension, all I can get to is 1X. For more magnification, my only option is to go with a shorter lens, so I switch to my 100mm Minolta Bellows lens. But even that only goes so far, at which point I switch to my 50mm Minolta Bellows lens, etc. I can end up with a really short lens pretty quickly.

[plaubel]

How did you accomplish this?

The hardest thing has been to find out how to unscrew the Componon S cellgroups from the barrel.
After that, I just screwed the lensgroups into the copal as usual.

[plaubel]

Actually, I prefer a bit longer lens for close-ups.



Longer lenses are perfect for reproductions ( twodimensional subjects); for typically threedimensional closeups the shorter lens will give sharper results.
This has to do with the ratio of focal length and "Bildschale" (sorry, I'm not able to translate "Bildschale", but a short look at "saggital plane" and "meridional plane" may help https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittalebene_(Optik)) which is smaller at shorter lenses, which results in smaller COC in areas away from the optical center.

Ritchie

[xkaes]

I got lucky today!

As I mentioned before on this thread, for many of my macro shots, I use Minolta lenses on my large format cameras. To attach a Minolta lens to a #1 shutter, I need TWO adapters. One converts the shutter to a Leica 39mm female thread, while the other converts a Minolta bayonet mount to a Leica 39mm male thread. I have two of the first adapter, and one of the second. The first was not too difficult to find, but the latter was. While most SLR camera manufacturers made adapters to allow Leica 39mm threaded lenses to be used on their cameras, I doubt that many -- or ANY -- made adapters to allow their lenses to be used on 39mm threaded cameras. Please inform me/us if I an am wrong about this.

The Minolta bayonet lens mount to a Leica 39mm male thread adapter that I have is unmarked/unbranded, and I think I bought it at Cambridge Camera -- years ago. But Novoflex made/makes(?) an adapter to do just that -- and I managed to nab one today for $25. There are still three "on the shelf". I don't follow brands other than Minolta, but I have got to assume that Novoflex made the same adapters for use with lenses from other major manufacturers such as Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and Olympus. Anyone have any of these or seen them?

Novoflex's designation appears to be pretty easy to read. For example, their adapter to convert the Minolta bayonet to a Leica 39mm thread is "LEIMIN" -- Leica on the rear, and Minolta on the front. Their adapter to convert the Leica 39mm thread to a Minolta bayonet mount is "MINLEI" -- Minolta on the rear, and Leica on the front. So, I assume, for example, similar Nikon adapters would be "LEINIK" and "NIKLEI", or something like that.

Minolta made three microscope lens thread (RMS) to Minolta bayonet adapters -- as did Olympus. I assume others, in addition to Novoflex, did as well.

[ericantonio]

Wait, these lenses cover 4x5? I remember you on the old minolta ml mailing list. "Mailing list!" Who uses those anymore? :)

[xkaes]

Wait, these lenses cover 4x5? I remember you on the old minolta ml mailing list. "Mailing list!" Who uses those anymore? :)

Yes, of course they do. Check out the earlier posts on this thread.

Also check out:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138802-Macro-Glass-for-8x10&highlight=minolta

and

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/mygear.htm (http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/mygear.htm)

[ericantonio]

Yes, of course they do. Check out the earlier posts on this thread.

Also check out:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138802-Macro-Glass-for-8x10&highlight=minolta

and

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/mygear.htm (http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/mygear.htm)

Cool link and thread. I read it quickly. Will need to go over it a few times again. A little over my head :)