NOOB Question About Close UP 4x5 LF Lenses

[gearhed]

Hello everyone,

I started a thread previously about a good large format camera. I went with the Sinar F 4x5 field camera on the monorail according to the suggestions. So, thanks to everyone on helping me with my first purchase.

First mistake I made was not extending the bellows fully and was not able to get focus with the Schneider Kreuznach 1:5,6/210 on a door across
a rather small office room. I am learning though.Here is the camera that I purchased off ebay:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/MINT-SINAR-F-4x5-LARGE-FORMAT-CAMERA-w-SYMMAR-210mm-F5-6-LENS-CASE-RAIL-/333123780078?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&nma=true&si=32oPjufsveeDAhUblKj1jnO%252BjkE%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc

Now, my subject will be B&W and shot at a distance of about 1 foot away I am trying to fill the entire negative. I am filming multiple pieces of tree bark that are cut into sections that are 6x3 inches give or take.

Problem: The Schneider Kreuznach 1:5,6/210 lens does not seem to focus on objects this close at all.

Question: What is a suitable lens for close up flat surfaces that that can focus easily? I want the camera as close as possible for the detail and for the 6X3 bark
samples to fill the entire screen.

Again, thanks. You guys are a great at answering questions from new guys.

[Dan Fromm]

NOOB, this forum has resources that, as a newcomer, you might not be aware of. Go to the forum's parent site largeformatphotography.info and look in the FAQs.

There is a link to one of the more obscure resources in the first post in this https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138978-Where-to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses discussion. The section "Books on closeup ..." lists several you should study before spending money on anything but them. Lefkowitz is probably best for you.

You may think I'm being mean by not answering your question directly. As it happens, I am mean. Very. But large format helps those who help themselves. Reading books is a better way to learn what you need to know than asking questions on a bulletin board like this. Some of the answers you'll get here will be correct and helpful if, usually, incomplete. Others will be dead wrong. It isn't clear that you know enough to tell the difference. A good book will give you more complete and safer answers than you can get here.

[Bob Salomon]

Do it correctly, a macro lens for LF like a 120 or 180 Apo Macro Sironar.

Do it with your lens, a longer bellows and an extension rail.

Depending on the magnification required the shorter lens will give you the most magnification but you might still require more bellows and rail.

BTW, if you need more bellows you will also need an auxiliary standard.

Your 210 is corrected for optimal performance at image ratios of 1:10 to infinity at f22.
The Apo Macro Sironars are corrected for optimal performance from 1:5 to 5:1 at f22.

[MusicalPhotog]

Problem: The Schneider Kreuznach 1:5,6/210 lens does not seem to focus on objects this close at all.

Question: What is a suitable lens for close up flat surfaces that that can focus easily? I want the camera as close as possible for the detail and for the 6X3 bark
samples to fill the entire screen.

Hi,

Nice camera; should serve you well for years to come.

So to your questions about LF macro... In LF photography, focusing is more about bellows extension than it is with lenses. So the more bellows 'draw' you have, the closer you can focus (in theory). (There are some limitations and pitfalls to watch for...like exposure compensation due to light loss from long bellows.)

Some lenses are better suited for "close-up" work than others. But the Schneider is a very nice lens, in a handy focal length that you may find lots of use for. At this point, I would suggest hanging on to it until you get a firm grasp on how you're going to use your new camera and what you're going to shoot. (BTW: I shoot landscapes, and I have 2 lenses in 210mm focal length; one of them a Schneider Symmar, like yours.)

And of course, we look forward to seeing what you come up with. :-D

[gearhed]

Dan,
Thanks for the link. Funny you mention the resources of this site as a starting point. Before posting this question, I read the entire Introduction to Lenses for Large Format Cameras, 2nd Edition by David Karp (not knowing it was linked here). This was the most direct and clean explanation of lenses that I have found after searching for a few hours. As many that are new know, the topic of lenses is vast and takes many directions. I got a basic understanding but there are still many questions before I can even snap my first photo to get a baseline to start leaning from.

I have researched many parts and pieces about LF and read the entire Sinar F manual and all of the information I could get my hands on about developing film. In the last 2 weeks, I have put many many hours into learning. I am putting in plenty of effort in to learn. This subject is.....DEEP. I am just trying to get a start here.

[gearhed]

Hi,

Nice camera; should serve you well for years to come.

So to your questions about LF macro... In LF photography, focusing is more about bellows extension than it is with lenses. So the more bellows 'draw' you have, the closer you can focus (in theory). (There are some limitations and pitfalls to watch for...like exposure compensation due to light loss from long bellows.)

Some lenses are better suited for "close-up" work than others. But the Schneider is a very nice lens, in a handy focal length that you may find lots of use for. At this point, I would suggest hanging on to it until you get a firm grasp on how you're going to use your new camera and what you're going to shoot. (BTW: I shoot landscapes, and I have 2 lenses in 210mm focal length; one of them a Schneider Symmar, like yours.)

And of course, we look forward to seeing what you come up with. :-D

Thanks!
I would love to hang onto the lens but I will probably need to let it go in order to justify another purchase so soon after the camera purchase.

I read that the lens is very connected to the bellows extension and they have a very direct correlation. Does it make sense to get a longer rail and longer bellows to accommodate the 210mm lens? I had them maxed out and 4-5 feet away seemed to be the closest object I could focus.This camera is all stock as far as I know. For the most part, I would like to set the camera up for close indoor shots at least until I get comfortable.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Did you mount the rail extension?

[gearhed]

Do it correctly, a macro lens for LF like a 120 or 180 Apo Macro Sironar.

Do it with your lens, a longer bellows and an extension rail.

Depending on the magnification required the shorter lens will give you the most magnification but you might still require more bellows and rail.

BTW, if you need more bellows you will also need an auxiliary standard.

Your 210 is corrected for optimal performance at image ratios of 1:10 to infinity at f22.
The Apo Macro Sironars are corrected for optimal performance from 1:5 to 5:1 at f22.

Bob,
Thank you so much for your clear concise answer. This gives me AT LEAST a starting point. Lenses are a steep learning curve when you are new in the Photography world.
Your answer is pretty much a headshot.

[gearhed]

Did you mount the rail extension?

Is that what that is? I feel silly for not knowing that. There was I thought simply an extra rail included in the purchase. I didn't know that was a rail extension.

[MusicalPhotog]

Thanks!
I would love to hang onto the lens but I will probably need to let it go in order to justify another purchase so soon after the camera purchase.

I read that the lens is very connected to the bellows extension and they have a very direct correlation. Does it make sense to get a longer rail and longer bellows to accommodate the 210mm lens? I had them maxed out and 4-5 feet away seemed to be the closest object I could focus.This camera is all stock as far as I know. For the most part, I would like to set the camera up for close indoor shots at least until I get comfortable.

Well getting a shorter lens as Bob suggested might be a good idea. But to add to some of Dan's points... jumping right into a challenging field like large format macro while still learning about large format in general will be difficult, to say the least. And there's only so much you can learn from books. I might suggest spending some quality time with your camera in a controlled environment. See what it can do and (more importantly) what you can do with it. There's just no substitution for real, hands-on experience.

[Bernice Loui]

Standard rail on that Sinar F will not focus that close with a 210mm lens. As others suggested use a shorter focal length and/or add as much rail as needed. Then you'll come up to the limit of the single Sinar bellows which is about 450mm or 16 inches there about depending on how close up aka how much magnification is required. If this happens, use a shorter focal length lens or all another bellows and as much rail as needed.. Which brings up the problem of camera stability and set up with the item you're imaging.

Don't forget to add bellows compensation as there is light loss at the film plane once you're into this close up stuff.


Bernice

[Dan Fromm]

gearhed, if you buy a copy of Lefkowitz and read it you'll learn the relationship between focal length, extension and magnification. You'll need to understand that to solve your problem.

You'll also have to know the relationship between coverage at infinity (magnification = 0) and coverage at higher magnifications. By an odd coincidence that won't bear close examination, the list's "Coverage closer than infinity ..." section points to the answer you need.

[gearhed]

Do it correctly, a macro lens for LF like a 120 or 180 Apo Macro Sironar.

Do it with your lens, a longer bellows and an extension rail.

Depending on the magnification required the shorter lens will give you the most magnification but you might still require more bellows and rail.

BTW, if you need more bellows you will also need an auxiliary standard.

Your 210 is corrected for optimal performance at image ratios of 1:10 to infinity at f22.
The Apo Macro Sironars are corrected for optimal performance from 1:5 to 5:1 at f22.

Yikes, those lenses are more than what I paid for my camera. Do you have to get the entire shutter assembly or can you just get the lens? I am OK with a few hundred dollars but $1300 is pretty darn expensive.

[gearhed]

gearhed, if you buy a copy of Lefkowitz and read it you'll learn the relationship between focal length, extension and magnification. You'll need to understand that to solve your problem.

You'll also have to know the relationship between coverage at infinity (magnification = 0) and coverage at higher magnifications. By an odd coincidence that won't bear close examination, the list's "Coverage closer than infinity ..." section points to the answer you need.

Dan, I just purchased Manual of Close-Up Photography by Lefkowitz, Lester off of Amazon. I will read that before going any further I guess.

[MusicalPhotog]

Yikes, those lenses are more than what I paid for my camera. Do you have to get the entire shutter assembly or can you just get the lens? I am OK with a few hundred dollars but $1300 is pretty darn expensive.

So like I mentioned.... Large format macro presents challenges in many aspects; your wallet being one of them! But like Bob said... "Do it correctly..."

[gearhed]

Bob,

Is this the lens you are talking about?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Rodenstock-180mm-f-5-6-APO-Macro-Sironar-Large-Format-Lens-Copal-1-Shutter/153580038025?hash=item23c2156789:g:rKYAAOSwIXZdObFW

[Oren Grad]

Dan, I just purchased Manual of Close-Up Photography by Lefkowitz, Lester off of Amazon. I will read that before going any further I guess.

That would be a good idea. Dan isn't being difficult just for the sake of being difficult. In close-up work, if you don't have a decent understanding of the underlying principles, it's not hard to get yourself into situations where the camera's behavior is baffling and the intuitions you bring from experience with non-close-up work lead you astray. Also, many people coming to large format photography for the first time bring the hope and expectation that the larger negative or transparency will provide technically superior results. But there are many scenarios in close-up photography where this is not true, and a smaller-format camera is in fact a better tool for the job.

Taking a more systematic approach to learning about this will help you understand why these things are true, how to ask better-focused questions, and how to find your way to tools and techniques that will best help you accomplish your goals with this and other projects.

Good luck, and enjoy!

[Bob Salomon]

Bob,

Is this the lens you are talking about?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Rodenstock-180mm-f-5-6-APO-Macro-Sironar-Large-Format-Lens-Copal-1-Shutter/153580038025?hash=item23c2156789:g:rKYAAOSwIXZdObFW

That is one of the 2 I mentioned.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Is that what that is? I feel silly for not knowing that. There was I thought simply an extra rail included in the purchase. I didn't know that was a rail extension.

Please let us know if it helps. Adding the extension and trying it will take less time than reading this thread of experts.
--
Jac

[Dan Fromm]

gearhed, since no one has mentioned it, enlarging lenses used intelligently can give good results at a low cost. I have a number of very good lenses intended for closeup work, including Zeiss Luminars and Reichert Neupolars, also process lenses that are very good at near distances.

My go-to lens for work at moderate magnifications -- no one has mentioned it, but a 6" x 3" piece of bark on 4x5 film means magnification around 0.75: 1 -- is a 4"/5.6 Wollensak Enlarging Pro Raptar hung in front of a Copal #1 shutter. Before I could afford a proper cock-and-shoot Copal #1 I used a Copal Press #1, ex-Polaroid MP-4. These shutters are inexpensive because basically useless since they have no diaphragms. The adapter needed to hang the lens in front of a #1 cost more than lens plus shutter.

I also have a couple of Schneider Comparons (105/4.5, 150/5.6) whose cells fit a #0 shutter. In fact, I harvested one in Copal #0 press from a mug shot camera. Cheap, cheerful and very usable. As Packard car ads used to say, "Ask the man who owns one."

About Bob Salomon's advice. Bob knows a lot and is a person of high integrity. I have never seen him, when asked to recommend a lens, mention a lens that was not well-suited to its purpose. I respect him and his advice highly. But he worked for decades for Rodenstock's US distributor and has always been reluctant to suggest competitors' lenses.

In alphabetical order, Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider have all offered high performance macro lenses for low magnification work with large format cameras. To my untrained eye, i.e., I haven't had any of them so haven't shot any against each other, they're all functionally equivalent and better than good enough. I have worked with high performance macro lenses for LF cameras from microscope manufacturers and from camera makers' microscope divisions. The same goes for modern ones from all makers. None of this is to say that less expensive alternatives, like the enlarging lenses I've mentioned (I've used all of 'em) aren't also good enough to use.

[gearhed]

gearhed, since no one has mentioned it, enlarging lenses used intelligently can give good results at a low cost. I have a number of very good lenses intended for closeup work, including Zeiss Luminars and Reichert Neupolars, also process lenses that are very good at near distances.

My go-to lens for work at moderate magnifications -- no one has mentioned it, but a 6" x 3" piece of bark on 4x5 film means magnification around 0.75: 1 -- is a 4"/5.6 Wollensak Enlarging Pro Raptar hung in front of a Copal #1 shutter. Before I could afford a proper cock-and-shoot Copal #1 I used a Copal Press #1, ex-Polaroid MP-4. These shutters are inexpensive because basically useless since they have no diaphragms. The adapter needed to hang the lens in front of a #1 cost more than lens plus shutter.

I also have a couple of Schneider Comparons (105/4.5, 150/5.6) whose cells fit a #0 shutter. In fact, I harvested one in Copal #0 press from a mug shot camera. Cheap, cheerful and very usable. As Packard car ads used to say, "Ask the man who owns one."

About Bob Salomon's advice. Bob knows a lot and is a person of high integrity. I have never seen him, when asked to recommend a lens, mention a lens that was not well-suited to its purpose. I respect him and his advice highly. But he worked for decades for Rodenstock's US distributor and has always been reluctant to suggest competitors' lenses.

In alphabetical order, Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider have all offered high performance macro lenses for low magnification work with large format cameras. To my untrained eye, i.e., I haven't had any of them so haven't shot any against each other, they're all functionally equivalent and better than good enough. I have worked with high performance macro lenses for LF cameras from microscope manufacturers and from camera makers' microscope divisions. The same goes for modern ones from all makers. None of this is to say that less expensive alternatives, like the enlarging lenses I've mentioned (I've used all of 'em) aren't also good enough to use.

I have read this about enlarger lenses as well but I wouldn't know where to start with adapting one to the Sinar F. I appreciate your input especially since learning of the cost of a true macro lens. My biggest concern is getting an EXACT image without distortion or weird variations in aspect ration. I true 1-1 reproduction is my goal. I understand most of the concern about learning more and I certainly value all of the input. BUT, I really want to start with macro photography from the distance and size that I mentioned. I will still read the book I purchased but I would like to play around at the same time to learn the end-goal setup.

All of the input has been useful but I really don't have an interest in getting familiar with my current 210mm lens since the change to an enlarger lens or a macro lens will present
its own nuances and challenges. I really want to start with the setup to shoot macro so I get familiar with it. This is a deep and vast field for sure and I don't want to miss anything.I think a lot of people underestimate the pure volume of information on the internet regarding LF. It's like trying to drink from a fire hose.

I am really trying to get a simple starting point to begin learning from. If you know of an enlarger lens and adapter that could work, let me know.

[Dan Fromm]

I mentioned two focal lengths of Comparon. With either, no adapter is needed. If you get one set up for enlarging, unscrew the cells from their barrel, screw them into a #0 shutter. Doing this will require a shutter and its aperture will have to be scaled to the lens. Both focal lengths were sold in shutter, so you may be able to find one ready to go. To mount one on a camera, you'll need a lens board bored for Compur/Copal #0 and a retaining ring to hold the shutter to the board. I really think you had better learn more about your camera before you proceed, starting with how to set it up.

Which Comparon, if you go that way? If I were in your situation and my camera had a rail slightly longer that 12", I'd go for a 150, whose cells will fit a #0. If not quite 12", then a 135/4.5, whose cells will go in a #1 shutter.

At 1:1, a subject 6" long won't fit a 4x5 sheet of film. If you want to shoot 6" x 3" pieces of bark at 1:1 the smallest camera that will do what you want is 5x7.



My biggest concern is getting an EXACT image without distortion or weird variations in aspect ratio.

That's what enlarging lenses do. No distortion. To avoid funniness, simply shoot straight on, with the film plane parallel to the subject and the lens' axis perpendicular to the film plane.

[Tin Can]

Here I go, with my take on macro. Some here in this thread disagree...

OP have you looked through the Macro and closeup pictures posted on this site?

Some include what lens and what magnification.

Make sure you study Ken Lee's typewriter posts as they have very good detail for what you want. There are many Ken Lee pics posted in this thread. Some are studies in tonality and curve. Beautiful.

Here is something I did from about a foot. Bigger film. (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?120079-Post-Your-Photos-Made-At-Close-Distance&p=1332956&viewfull=1#post1332956)

[Bob Salomon]

gearhed, since no one has mentioned it, enlarging lenses used intelligently can give good results at a low cost. I have a number of very good lenses intended for closeup work, including Zeiss Luminars and Reichert Neupolars, also process lenses that are very good at near distances.

My go-to lens for work at moderate magnifications -- no one has mentioned it, but a 6" x 3" piece of bark on 4x5 film means magnification around 0.75: 1 -- is a 4"/5.6 Wollensak Enlarging Pro Raptar hung in front of a Copal #1 shutter. Before I could afford a proper cock-and-shoot Copal #1 I used a Copal Press #1, ex-Polaroid MP-4. These shutters are inexpensive because basically useless since they have no diaphragms. The adapter needed to hang the lens in front of a #1 cost more than lens plus shutter.

I also have a couple of Schneider Comparons (105/4.5, 150/5.6) whose cells fit a #0 shutter. In fact, I harvested one in Copal #0 press from a mug shot camera. Cheap, cheerful and very usable. As Packard car ads used to say, "Ask the man who owns one."

About Bob Salomon's advice. Bob knows a lot and is a person of high integrity. I have never seen him, when asked to recommend a lens, mention a lens that was not well-suited to its purpose. I respect him and his advice highly. But he worked for decades for Rodenstock's US distributor and has always been reluctant to suggest competitors' lenses.

In alphabetical order, Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider have all offered high performance macro lenses for low magnification work with large format cameras. To my untrained eye, i.e., I haven't had any of them so haven't shot any against each other, they're all functionally equivalent and better than good enough. I have worked with high performance macro lenses for LF cameras from microscope manufacturers and from camera makers' microscope divisions. The same goes for modern ones from all makers. None of this is to say that less expensive alternatives, like the enlarging lenses I've mentioned (I've used all of 'em) aren't also good enough to use.

Thank you Dan. But, as you know, I was also Linhof from the late 70s till 2015 and we sold lots of Schneider lenses over that time as well.