8x10 Macro Photography lens Question

[Torontoamateur]

I am drawn to do more Macro woth my P2 8x10 and wonder which lens is suitable? Any experience with the Makro Sironar? Is the 210mm or the 300mm best? How about the Nikon ED macro lenses? Any help is welcome. With the winter coming I see nmore inside time doing photos.

[Pere Casals]

I am drawn to do more Macro woth my P2 8x10 and wonder which lens is suitable? Any experience with the Makro Sironar? Is the 210mm or the 300mm best? How about the Nikon ED macro lenses? Any help is welcome. With the winter coming I see nmore inside time doing photos.

The question is "what magnification", so the ratio between object size vs image size.

It is difficult for a lens to be very good at 1:1 and at 1:5 (imageSize : objectSize). You also may play 4:1

If your shubjet is not flat you may have to stop a lot for DOF and then diffraction hides lens quality differences...


Of course macro sironars are excellent, a cheap way to start is using an enlarger lens, for example a bare old Rodagon 210mm or 240mm that may cover from close enough subjects. This graph (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?154554-calling-all-Durst-184-Laborators&p=1519773&viewfull=1#post1519773) shows what a enlarger lens would cover depending on magnification.

Imagine that you want a high magnification, say image x5 larger than the object, in that case an optimal solution is a reversed 50mm Nikkor EL enlarging lens for 35mm film, that once reversed and close to object it covers 8x10 working at its sweet spot.

If you are starting, play first with your yet owned taking and enlarging lenses, this would tell you what focal you want, and anyway lenses that are not for Makro may work as good when anyway you have to stop a lot for DOF through a 3D object, as in that situation it's diffraction what limits optical performance, rather than the lens itself.


For 1:1 I'd use a long Rodagon R (not easy to find) or other Reproduction glass, for 1:4 I'd use an old Rodagon 240mm without letter, for 5:1 I'd use a Nikkor EL 50mm f/2.8 reversed. You would have no shutter, but this is not a problem i the studio as you can remove the cap and then you fire the strobes.


If I was making a lot of macro shooting I'd find what advantages/cost would have a Makro Sironar, which are in shutter, usually.

_______

An important Macro factor is how a lens renders the Out Of Focus (bokeh) !!!!

So when you know what focal/coverage you want then you should investigate what OOF nature you like, before spending big money.

[Doremus Scudder]

Many "standard" lenses are just fine for macro photography at lower magnification ratios, say up to 1:1. Sure a macro lens will deliver superior results, but if you're contact printing 8x10, these may be superfluous.

What's important is that you have a focal length that allows you to work with bellows extension and subject-to-lens distance easily. I'd recommend starting with a focal length that is about half your maximum bellows draw or a bit shorter. The P2 goes to about 450mm I think, so a moderately wide standard lens, say in the ~200mm range would give you a range of magnifications up to life-size on the film.

For closer work, consider lenses not intended for 8x10 that will still cover when extended way past infinity. Enlarging lenses in the 80mm - 150mm range leap to mind. You'll have to mount them on a board and use a lens cap for a shutter. The latter is usually not a problem when doing very close work, since the exposures tend to be longer than several seconds. If you use strobes, then just darken the room before removing the lens cap and firing the strobes. Re-cap and then turn on the lights.

If I had lenses like the above laying around already, I'd try them out and see if I liked the results before shelling out for a new lens.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

[Tin Can]

I am saving my pennies for a Nikon ED210mm f/5.6 here in a brochere. (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/pdf/Nikkor_LargeFormatLenses.pdf)

Most likely I will buy from Japan as they seem to have a few and take very good care of their gear.

I have had good luck with Nikon LF glass and their Copal shutters.

I also plan to stay inside and warm soon...

[Dan Fromm]

To expand a little on what Doremus already said if you have one ready to hand and enlarging lens would be a good starting point. He didn't mention that for use at magnifications greater than 1:1 the lens should be reversed for best results. This has implications for which enlarging lenses to try.

The shortest enlarging lenses that can be counted on to cover 8x10 at 1:1 have 150 mm focal length. Schneider has two, 150/5.6 Comparon and 150/5.6 Componon-S, that will fit #0 shutters. The 150/5.6 Componon might, but I have no documentation that says so. I mention these two because reversing lenses that fit #0s is easy, just swap the cells front to back. This can't be done with lenses in #1 because these shutters have different threading at each ends. I have no idea which sizes of shutter, if any, other makers' enlarging lenses' cells will fit.

If you want to work below 1:1 you'll probably need a lens longer than 150 mm. Not directly relevant, but on 2x3 I like to use lenses that are normal to normal and a half for closeup work, roughly 1:8 - 2:1. 100 - 150 mm. For 8x10, that would be 300 - 450 mm.

You might also consider a process lens in shutter. Apo-Ronars, G-Clarons and Repro-Clarons have been sold in shutter. All are symmetrical so don't have to be reversed for best results above 1:1. Be wary of Apo-Ronars in barrel since not all have cells that are direct fits in standard shutters. My two 150/9 Apo-Ronars are like that.

[Pere Casals]

If you want to work below 1:1 you'll probably need a lens longer than 150 mm.

Dan, or going shorter with the lens reversed... which is cheaper.

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, or going shorter with the lens reversed... which is cheaper.

Papi, you have it backwards.

[Pere Casals]

Papi, you have it backwards.

No problem... What I do is attaching a filter size ring adapter to a lensboard, the adapter holds all the lens outside, so shutter and diafragm levers can be accessed, as in this case lenses are shorter and smaller it makes sense.

[Dan Fromm]

Papi, you didn't understand. A shorter lens will have less, not more, coverage given magnification. Reversing it won't change that.

When working close up, we use short lenses when we want high magnification because other things equal a short lens needs less extension to get the magnification than a long lens. We can do this because coverage increases with magnification.

We reverse lenses made for shooting a low magnification (large subject in front of lens, relatively small negative behind) when shooting at magnifications > 1:1 (small subject in front of lens, relatively large negative behind) to take best advantage of the lens' optimizations.

[Pere Casals]

A Nikkor EL 50mm covers 8x10 at around 4:1, and if reversed it works at its sweet point...

At lower magnification we may use say a componon-s 100mm, to cite two lenses I've tested reversed...

[Mark Sawyer]

It would be helpful for the OP to let us know the magnification. As Pere noted, 1:1 is different from 1:5. And very different from 5:1.

[fuegocito]

I was curious at this question as well, whether there is any practical differences between a regular (Plasmat) lens and a dedicated LF macro lens. So I shot the same scene at close to 1:1 range on 810 and visually look at the final images, I am not going to argue how lenses are "optimized" for this and that, but in practical use, I see no differences between a regular lens compare to a Macro lens in direct comparison. I imagine if the test is done scientifically it may yield different results, but since our day to day photography is not done in absolute terms, I would say if there is any differences, it is relatively moot for our day to day usage.

[Dan Fromm]

A Nikkor EL 50mm covers 8x10 at around 4:1, and if reversed it works at its sweet point...

At lower magnification we may use say a componon-s 100mm, to cite two lenses I've tested reversed...

About that 50 El Nikkor, did you use it at 4:1 on 8x10? I ask because following Emmanuel's logic (see https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?67361-Calculating-lens-coverage), at 4:1 it should cover around 215 mm, somewhat less than 8x10's diagonal.

At 1:1 we can reasonably expect a 100 mm enlarging lens to cover 12 cm x 16 cm. This is much smaller than 18x24.

Think and calculate before posting, Papi.

[Drew Wiley]

The whole problem here is what is meant by macro. A whole flower or the eyeball of a bug on it? For closeup work on 8x10, I use my Fuji A lenses, which are much better corrected at close range than general purpose plasmats. G-Clarons are a similar design. There IS a visible significant difference in the print, which certainly isn't moot, at least if it's optically enlarged. Contact printers get away with all kinds of things, and color inkjet prints just can't hold high resolution. But for really tiny subjects I'd want a dedicated lens design, and those don't do very well at more ordinary distances, so aren't versatile. But if you specialize in photographing bugs or diamond rings, it would be a wise investment. Micro photography is yet another topic.

[Pere Casals]

About that 50 El Nikkor, did you use it at 4:1 on 8x10? I ask because following Emmanuel's logic (see https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?67361-Calculating-lens-coverage), at 4:1 it should cover around 215 mm, somewhat less than 8x10's diagonal.

At 1:1 we can reasonably expect a 100 mm enlarging lens to cover 12 cm x 16 cm. This is much smaller than 18x24.

Think and calculate before posting, Papi.


Dan, yes, you are right, as always...

We discused that two years ago: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?142559-5X7-Macro-180mm-Componon-S-Reversed&p=1416568&viewfull=1#post1416568

Then I calculated it and the Nikkor EL 50mm covers 5x7 at 3.91:1

This was my calculation:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=172064&d=1510863830

To me it's easier making the calculation with Solidworks :)


Anyway, let me insist how in powerful is a Reversed Enlarging lens for extreme Macro, that EL casts beyond 50 lp/mm on film taking more than 200 lp/mm on subject at 4:1 on 5x7" or 4x5", taking amazing detail from flat subjects, of course DOF is narrow...


And also let me point again the solution of attaching a filter adapter ring on a lensboard using the filter thread of the lens to screew the lens on the board, in that way we have all the reversed lens outside and we may operate it.

The way to attch the ring adapter to the lensboard is also easy, we need an adapter that jumps everal sizes, in that way there is space in the disc to drill several holes for bolting the adapter to the lensboard:

196341

Of course this would be dangerous for big glasses, but perfectly suitable to reverse a Componon or Symmar 150.

[Tracy Storer]

I've done a lot of medium - high magnification with reversed enlarging lenses. (Apo-Rodagon 50mm and 80mm on the Polaroid 20"x24", as well as lots of assorted other longer lenses for less mag.)
If it can make your 35mm negative into a 20"x24" print, it's good for the job. I made a ring that has male Copal #1(front) threads on one side and the lenses filter threads (also male) on the other side. Works great.

[fuegocito]

Generally speaking, when many people speak of comparing lens A vs lens B, most people would compare images taken with A lens and B lens but not necessary of the two said lenses shooting the exact same scene for direct comparison. In such cases, to make any statement about the comparative quality of the two lenses is really operating on fairly weak ground.

For my experiment, I used my 810 and shot a close up of two tomatoes using a book as the background (right, no resolution charts, no shapes all over to define distortion, no color grids to define color shift) just an ordinary scene of what and how I might shoot in B&W. The lenses I employed, since I was going to go at this, I might as well try all the lenses I have lingered around. So in no particular order I shot with an Apo Symmar 210, Commercial Ektar 210, A Collinear (170-190mm range), a 203mm Ektar, A single coated Fujinon 210mm (the one with huge IC), a Dagor 210mm, a G-Claron 210mm, a Geronar 210mm, a Protar(focal length?) and last but not least, a Macro Sironar 210mm in standard lens group arrangement. First image is the set up(done with Apo Symmar), and the second is a composite of all the center crop of all the images shot with the said lenses at 2 stop down from wide open. With each lens I shot at wide open, at two stop closed down from max aperture and at F/64. For the composite I think I may have picked the wrong neg with G-Claron lens, picking the F/64 instead of the F/16 neg. And the final image is of the one shot with the Macro-Sironar

[Pere Casals]

the background

Nice test !!

[Mark Sawyer]

Weston's Pepper No. 30 is about twice life-size, and was made with a run-of-the-mill 210mm Zeiss Tessar, and I've never heard anyone complain about its quality...

[Dan Fromm]

fuegocito, what magnification did you shoot at?

Mark, as peppers go #30 is soft everywhere. Just goes to prove that sharpness isn't everything.

[fuegocito]

fuegocito, what magnification did you shoot at?

Mark, as peppers go #30 is soft everywhere. Just goes to prove that sharpness isn't everything.

Hi Dan,

I didn't exactly measure every thing out but if I remember correctly it was probably approaching and close to 1:1.

[Dan Fromm]

Hi Dan,

I didn't exactly measure every thing out but if I remember correctly it was probably approaching and close to 1:1.

Thanks for the reply. At 1:1, f/16 set is f/32 effective. I don't know how much you enlarged your crops, but at that effective aperture the diffraction limit is around 50 lp/mm, maximum enlargement that looks sharp is around 6x. This killed me when I was shooting fish, flowers and insects with Kodachrome 25. I couldn't get good 8x10s from my slides, the fine details weren't really there.

My point is that y'r test isn't quite as informative as you hoped. Its real message is that diffraction is a killer when working close up.

[Pere Casals]

Dan, 50 lp/mm in a 8x10"... this is 500MPix effective, even with diffraction...

[Greg]

Over the years specialized in Photomacrography and Photomicrography as a very lucrative side business. Principle camera (system) was a Nikon MULTIPHOT. My lens set comprised a 19mm, 35mm, 65mm, and a 120mm Macro-Nikkor. These were very specialized lenses. They now regularly go for 1-2K each, but if you really, really look around you can acquire them for a few hundred dollars (or less) each, from state/govt. surplus stores. Also used a 8cm and a 12cm f/4.5 E. Leitz Wetzlar Summar which seemed to defy the laws of diffraction when stopped down. Shot almost everything with the 4x5 format. For field work used a 30mm Topcor adapted to a Nikon mount. Tried several high end enlarging lenses (even some Apos) but none ever surpassed the image quality of those Macro-Nikkors, BUT THEY DID COME AWFULLY CLOSE. Also did some Photomicrography work using a Nikon Ske Microscope with epi illumination and an 8x10 Sinar Norma back custom mounted above it. Reversed cine/movie lenses amazingly also do work. Have used Switar lenses off a Bolex camera with excellent results. But in the end very much "you get what you pay for". Zeiss Luminars excellent optics for close-up work, but having that word "Zeiss" in their description just hikes up their price. Have used them (on loan) but just personally prefer my Macro-Nikkor lens set. Isolating the vibration from the shutter firing off something you have to consider. The Multiphot (camera system) has an isolated shutter. Lately have been going digital and using focus stacking to give me extended depth of field and also sharpness that is impossible to get by stopping down a lens and just making one exposure. Forgot Repro-Clarons which just might now be the best deals to be out there, and a lot of times you can find them in shutters.

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, 50 lp/mm in a 8x10"... this is 500MPix effective, even with diffraction...

Yeah, so what?

The point of fuegocitos' test shots is that all of his lenses separated fine details equally well. And they did.

[Pere Casals]

Yeah, so what?

The point of fuegocitos' test shots is that all of his lenses separated fine details equally well. And they did.

Dan, those crops are 300 pix wide, so the full image (enlarged like the crops) would have 1500 pix wide, not covering a 2k monitor...

This would deliver a 2MPix file for the ful image, way under worst smartphone around is able.

We speak about 8x10" king size, so it would be nice to know if a fine 2m print would be superb...

It is a very interesting side by side, but it not tells what it would happen if we use the 500MPix potential in the 8x10" negative to see in fact what's fine detail !!

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, those crops are 300 pix wide, so the full image (enlarged like the crops) would have 1500 pix wide, not covering a 2k monitor...

This would deliver 3MPix file, way under worst smartphone around in able.

We speak about 8x10" king size, so it would be nice to know if a fine 1m print would be superb...

It is a very interesting side by side, but it not tells what it would happen if we use the 500MPix potential of the 8x10" negative to see in fact what's fine detail !!

Yeah, so what?

This discussion is not about the wonders of 8x10, it is about which lens might meet the OP's needs well enough.

[Pere Casals]

Yeah, so what?

This discussion is not about the wonders of 8x10, it is about which lens might meet the OP's needs well enough.

hmmm... nothing wrong in knowing what IQ we have, from those crops OP cannot realize if a $1000 Makro-Sironar may be a better choice than a $180 Geronar. Me I'd go to cheaper choices than $180, but quality is quality.

If we speak about 8x10" macro, why not mentioning IQ?

[fuegocito]

Thanks for the reply.

My point is that y'r test isn't quite as informative as you hoped. Its real message is that diffraction is a killer when working close up.

Well, all things being equal, camera, diffraction, operator error, scanner....the point is they would be more or less the same for every single lens in this test group. The idea of the test is find out whether a dedicated macro lens is head and shoulder above a regular non Macro lens, not how a lens might perform in an 810 or the sharpness or perceived sharpness in whatever viewing condition. I don't think you can say the test is a complete fail in that regard.

[Pere Casals]

The idea of the test is find out whether a dedicated macro lens is head and shoulder above a regular non Macro lens

The test would show it, but those scans can't. While diffraction limits performance to 50 lp/mm those scans limit performance to 3 lp/mm, if I calculated well.

I don't say if all those glasses perform the same or not in practical situations, what I say is that in a 3 lp/mm scan for sure all will look the same.

Anyway, sure that differences would be mostly seen with flat subjects...

[Mark Sawyer]

For 1:1, I'd recommend a process lens. Those are optimized for around 1:1, and often close down to very small stops, which is helpful with the reduced depth of field at close focusing distances. They're also cheap and plentiful these days...