For macro lenses on 4x5in cameras, what focal length is most useful?

[JMO]

I am planning to establish a table top set-up in my basement with backdrops, staging and appropriate lighting to begin photographing still life compositions, and I am considering purchase of a macro lens(es) for this purpose. There will be a learning curve, but that's part of the plan and the fun. In my research to date I see there are "macro" lenses from the big three or four makers available mostly in 120mm and 180mm focal lengths, but I am wondering which would be the most useful focal length for me to consider as a first purchase? Any other advice you might offer for lens choices would also be appreciated. My camera will be a Linhof Technikarden 45S. Thanks in advance for your help...

[Bob Salomon]

What magnification do you want? What shaped objects will you shoot?

[blue4130]

I quite enjoy my kodak enlarging ektar 125mm. Here is a shot on 4x5, Not sure what the magnification is, but I filled the frame with the watch (39mm)
200384

[John Layton]

55mm Micro Nikkor lens...reversed, on a Crown Graphic. Watch movement (following the "watch" theme) floating on water surface-tension after water sprinkled with aluminum powder:

200395

[John Layton]

...but for your goals and purposes - and considering your model of camera (bellows length-related) I'd recommend something in the range of 120 as a minimum, 180 as a maximum. Delving a bit more into your post...it sounds like if you had to choose between these two, then a 180 might be better.

Maybe give us a subject scenario. How close? Anticipated magnification ranges could be THE factor...one can run out of bellows awfully quick when a subject approaches life-size as measured on a focussing screen.

Hmmm...perhaps get your feet wet with a 150mm G-Claron?

[JMO]

What magnification do you want? What shaped objects will you shoot?

Bob, Thanks for your clarifying questions, and the responses of John Layton and others. If I understand correctly from past reading/research, I'll need twice the focal length of whatever lens I am using as bellows draw in order to focus at 1:1 - is that correct? Therefore, my TK45 with about 420mm of bellows draw will accommodate 120mm and 180mm out to 1:1 (and closer). As for subjects, I am thinking maybe bowls of fruit, table ware, family heirlooms like antique Christmas decor pottery or individual ornaments, and even as small as the watch face in post #3 above. So subjects from the size of that watch up to about a lunch box, or say my Master Technika camera opened up and with a 150mm lens on it (focused out to infinity) and sitting on a table top. Now hopes this helps.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, Thanks for your clarifying questions, and the responses of John Layton and others. If I understand correctly from past reading/research, I'll need twice the focal length of whatever lens I am using as bellows draw in order to focus at 1:1 - is that correct? Therefore, my TK45 with about 420mm of bellows draw will accommodate 120mm and 180mm out to 1:1 (and closer). As for subjects, I am thinking maybe bowls of fruit, table ware, family heirlooms like antique Christmas decor pottery or individual ornaments, and even as small as the watch face in post #3 above. So subjects from the size of that watch up to about a lunch box, or say my Master Technika camera opened up and with a 150mm lens on it (focused out to infinity) and sitting on a table top. How hopes this helps.

180mm Apo Macro Sironar

[JMO]

...but for your goals and purposes - and considering your model of camera (bellows length-related) I'd recommend something in the range of 120 as a minimum, 180 as a maximum. Delving a bit more into your post...it sounds like if you had to choose between these two, then a 180 might be better.

Maybe give us a subject scenario. How close? Anticipated magnification ranges could be THE factor...one can run out of bellows awfully quick when a subject approaches life-size as measured on a focussing screen.

Hmmm...perhaps get your feet wet with a 150mm G-Claron?

John (or Bob?), Some time back, and after some research here on the Forum and thinking for these purposes, I purchased a nice 150mm APO Ronar. It has an IC of only 135mm at infinity, so doesn't cover 4x5in, but when used at 1:1 the IC is 270mm. What do you think of this APO Ronar versus the G-Claron?

[Dan Fromm]

John (or Bob?), Some time back, and after some research here on the Forum and thinking for these purposes, I purchased a nice 150mm APO Ronar. It has an IC of only 135mm at infinity, so doesn't cover 4x5in, but when used at 1:1 the IC is 270mm. What do you think of this APO Ronar versus the G-Claron?

JM, I have two ancient Klimsch 150/9 Apo Ronars, have had a plasmat type 150/9 G-Claron. In my tests the Apo Ronars were nearly equal, both shot better than the G-Claron. I sold the G-Claron. I now have a dagor type G-Claron, haven't repeated the experiment.

[Bob Salomon]

John (or Bob?), Some time back, and after some research here on the Forum and thinking for these purposes, I purchased a nice 150mm APO Ronar. It has an IC of only 135mm at infinity, so doesn't cover 4x5in, but when used at 1:1 the IC is 270mm. What do you think of this APO Ronar versus the G-Claron?

If you are shooting 3 dimensional objects the Apo Macro Sironar would be much better, especially at the edges and corners.

[tgtaylor]

Nikon Nikkor 120mm AM ED. Covers 4x5. There is a 210mm version that will cover 8x10 but for 4x5 I would recommend the 120mm which I have. B&H sold the 120mm version for over $1100 but I guess that nobody was buying them so they liquidated their stock at something like $275 ea. Sold out overnight - both the 120mm and 210.

Thomas

[Doremus Scudder]

With the still-life objects you describe, you may not be working as close as you think. Here are a couple of general observations to mull over:

For just "close-up" work and not "macro," you may find that a standard 135mm - 150mm lens suits your purpose just fine. If you have a lens in one of these focal lengths already, you might want to try it out and see how the results are before you start spending a lot on top-of-the-line macro lenses that are really intended for work closer to the 1:1 magnification range (or even higher). I get more-than-acceptable results at intermediate distances with a regular 135mm Plasmat.

Enlarging lenses make good macro lenses. They just don't have shutters. However, if you're using natural light, a small aperture, lots of bellows extension and figuring in reciprocity failure, you may find you don't need a shutter at all. Most of my table-top work is in the 2-20 minute range. I just pull the darkslide, remove the lens cap and tiptoe around for the exposure time.

Lenses without enough image circle for 4x5 at infinity will often work well at close distances since the bellows draw effectively enlarges the image circle. You may have some lenses around that will work well for close-up work when repurposed.

The shorter focal length you can use, the less you'll have to extend the bellows for a given magnification. I found that doing table-top work with a 210mm lens was just a bit too awkward for me. Sure, lens position determines perspective in the scene, so you may want to work nearer or farther from your subject depending on artistic choices. That said, I find that ~135mm is a really convenient focal length for me. (The 120mm macro lens would be in the same ballpark.)

Unrelated to lens choice, but important too: Focusing at very close distances becomes more a matter of moving the whole camera around. Moving both front and rear standards together on the rail is my preferred method once I've found the rough distance from my subject to get the magnification I want.

Best,

Doremus

[Bob Salomon]

With the still-life objects you describe, you may not be working as close as you think. Here are a couple of general observations to mull over:

For just "close-up" work and not "macro," you may find that a standard 135mm - 150mm lens suits your purpose just fine. If you have a lens in one of these focal lengths already, you might want to try it out and see how the results are before you start spending a lot on top-of-the-line macro lenses that are really intended for work closer to the 1:1 magnification range (or even higher). I get more-than-acceptable results at intermediate distances with a regular 135mm Plasmat.

Enlarging lenses make good macro lenses. They just don't have shutters. However, if you're using natural light, a small aperture, lots of bellows extension and figuring in reciprocity failure, you may find you don't need a shutter at all. Most of my table-top work is in the 2-20 minute range. I just pull the darkslide, remove the lens cap and tiptoe around for the exposure time.

Lenses without enough image circle for 4x5 at infinity will often work well at close distances since the bellows draw effectively enlarges the image circle. You may have some lenses around that will work well for close-up work when repurposed.

The shorter focal length you can use, the less you'll have to extend the bellows for a given magnification. I found that doing table-top work with a 210mm lens was just a bit too awkward for me. Sure, lens position determines perspective in the scene, so you may want to work nearer or farther from your subject depending on artistic choices. That said, I find that ~135mm is a really convenient focal length for me. (The 120mm macro lens would be in the same ballpark.)

Unrelated to lens choice, but important too: Focusing at very close distances becomes more a matter of moving the whole camera around. Moving both front and rear standards together on the rail is my preferred method once I've found the rough distance from my subject to get the magnification I want.

Best,

Doremus

So there is no confusion.

The 120 and 180mm Apo Macro Sironars were corrected for 1:5 to 5:1.

The older 210 and 300mm Macro Sironars were corrected for 1:3 to 3:1. They were replaced by the 120 and 180mm above.

[Tin Can]

For example only 300mm Plasmat at 2.5-1 on 11X14 X-Ray cropped during V700 scan

another of a mushroom at 3-1 at this link

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?156489-X-Ray-Film-Images-SHOW-THEM

[tgtaylor]

From the Nikon brochure:
The Nikkor-AM (Apo Macro) lenses are exclusively designed for macro photography and provide
outstanding performance at 1:1 reproduction. ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass reduces chromatic
aberration at all settings, and completely symmetrical lens construction ensures that the lens is 100% free of distortion and lateral chromatic aberration at 1:1 magnification. Combined with Nikon Super Integrated Coating, the result is outstandingly sharp images, free from flare and ghosts.

Specifications for 120 and 210 lenses:

Nikkor-AM ED 120mm f/5.6S Nikkor-AM ED 210mm f/5.6
Focal length 120mm Focal length 210mm
Maximum aperture ratio 1:5.6 Maximum aperture ratio 1:5.6
Minimum aperture f/45 Minimum aperture f/64
Lens construction 8 elements in 4 groups Lens construction 8 elements in 4 groups
Covering power (f/5.6) 47° Covering power (f/5.6) 41°
Covering power (f/22) 55° Covering power (f/22) 51°
Image circle (f/5.6) ø210mm Image circle (f/5.6) ø310mm (M=1:1)
Image circle (f/22) ø250mm (5" x 7") Image circle (f/22) ø400mm (10" x 12") (M=1:1)
Shutter No. 0 (Copal® *) Shutter No. 1 (Copal® *)
Shutter speed 1 ~ 1/500 s, T, B Shutter speed 1 ~ 1/400 s, T, B
Sync socket X-contact Sync socket X-contact
Front mount size Å ø54mm Front mount size Å ø70mm
Attachment size ı ø52mm x 0.75mm (P) Attachment size ı ø67mm x 0.75mm (P)
Rear mount size Ç ø42mm Rear mount size Ç ø70mm
Flange attachment size Î ø32.5mm x 0.5mm (P) Flange attachment size Î ø39mm x 0.75mm (P)
Flange focal distance ‰ 115.9mm Flange focal distance ‰ 202.7mm
Overall length Ï 64mm Overall length Ï 104.5mm

Thomas

[Greg]

From my Burke & James 1962 catalog. Some of these lenses, despite their age, are quite excellent optics and since few photographers are looking for them or even know how to use them, when they come up at auction, they go for bargain prices.

[Peter De Smidt]

Some of the lenses suggested are very expensive at the moment. I agree whole-hardheartedly about giving regular, enlarging, or graphic arts lenses a try. Working at 1x magnification is challenging, and the depth of field will be very shallow. I've done a lot of this with dslrs, but only a little with LF. When I did, my 150mm g-Claron worked great. It's in a youngish Copal shutter, and it was very cheap. If you fall in love with that type of photography, you can always keep your eye out for some of the fancier lenses.

[Bernice Loui]

"As for subjects, I am thinking maybe bowls of fruit, table ware, family heirlooms like antique Christmas decor pottery or individual ornaments, and even as small as the watch face in post #3"

These are not really "macro" they are more still life size subjects. Macro (IMO) would be the watch face and smaller. That 150mm APO Ronar will do great on 4x5 table top. Is sort of covers 4x5 at infinity, but once you at table top distances with the items you're planning to image, image circle should not be a problem at all. Often not considered, larger the image circle, the more internal flare from light bouncing off the sides of the bellows and camera internals can affect contrast. This is why using a lens with an over sized image circle for table top to macro is not always a good thing.

Hint with table top set up, position the taller-larger items towards the rear of the set up and the lower-smaller objets towards the front of the image. This can go a ways to help keep them in focus as camera movement is applied.

What will be done for lighting?

Keep in mind to add bellows factor correction or the film will be under exposed.

Do use an adjustable lens shade to reduce and prevent flare / contrast reduction due to flare-stray light.


Bernice



John (or Bob?), Some time back, and after some research here on the Forum and thinking for these purposes, I purchased a nice 150mm APO Ronar. It has an IC of only 135mm at infinity, so doesn't cover 4x5in, but when used at 1:1 the IC is 270mm. What do you think of this APO Ronar versus the G-Claron?

[Dan Fromm]

Enlarging lenses make good macro lenses. They just don't have shutters.

Y'know, many of Schneider's enlarging lenses have cells that are direct fits in standard shutters. And some were sold in shutter.

OP, I've used 105/4.5 and 150/5.6 Comparons for closeup work. I mention them because according to Schneider propaganda they're optimized for lower enlargements, i.e., lower magnifications as taking lenses, than Componons. In both lines, 105 and 150 mm lenses' cells fit Compur/Copal #0 shutters. This makes reversing the lenses for work at magnifications > 1:1 easy, just swap the cells around.

Comparons and Componons aren't the best macro lenses but they're not very expensive and are usable.

[JMO]

"As for subjects, I am thinking maybe bowls of fruit, table ware, family heirlooms like antique Christmas decor pottery or individual ornaments, and even as small as the watch face in post #3"

These are not really "macro" they are more still life size subjects. Macro (IMO) would be the watch face and smaller. That 150mm APO Ronar will do great on 4x5 table top. Is sort of covers 4x5 at infinity, but once you at table top distances with the items you're planning to image, image circle should not be a problem at all. Often not considered, larger the image circle, the more internal flare from light bouncing off the sides of the bellows and camera internals can affect contrast. This is why using a lens with an over sized image circle for table top to macro is not always a good thing.

Hint with table top set up, position the taller-larger items towards the rear of the set up and the lower-smaller objets towards the front of the image. This can go a ways to help keep them in focus as camera movement is applied.

What will be done for lighting?

Keep in mind to add bellows factor correction or the film will be under exposed.

Do use an adjustable lens shade to reduce and prevent flare / contrast reduction due to flare-stray light.


Bernice


Thank you, Bernice and all, for your helpful responses and suggestions. For lighting I have not decided yet, but I have some books on details of still life table-top photography and studio lighting (etc.), and those decisions will be part of the journey. I also have a LF friend living nearby who has done a fair amount of this type of photography in his basement, with excellent results. I am aware of the bellows exposure reciprocity considerations, and already have a Linhof Compendium Shade for my TK45S. I also picked up a really nice used Linhof HD Professional tripod with geared column, and then a Majestic 1200 geared head, a couple of years ago. I'm looking forward to diving in on this new phase in my LF journey!

[Bernice Loui]

Suggest getting a GOOD studio camera stand instead of any tripod for table top work as the GOOD ones (Foba, Linhof, Arkay and etc. Not one of those tiny rink-dinky pretend studio camera stands, those do NOT work very well) are far easier to maneuver and deal with to meet the demands of table top image making if space allows. Good wheels and brakes, ease of camera up-down, side to side can make ALL the difference for this kind of work.

Most common lighting for table top is a BIG soft box, much larger than the items being photographed is common. This is also where strobe works good as most of the time still life objects don't move much if at all and they don't easily flinch (like portrait sitters when the strobe goes FLASH) when the strobe goes off. Strobe allows better control of film exposure, precise control of color on film is possible, demands of shutter speed accuracy and consistency is no where as great. Get to know reflectors of white, aluminized, mixed, and black (negative fill) of various made up shapes and their holders.. they ARE your best friends for this king of image making.

Subject item positioning and camera position must be driven by image on the ground glass. First time ya do this, it will become apparent why this must be.



Bernice





[B][COLOR="#0000FF"]
I also picked up a really nice used Linhof HD Professional tripod with geared column, and then a Majestic 1200 geared head, a couple of years ago. I'm looking forward to diving in on this new phase in my LF journey!

[tgtaylor]

Consider adding a tripod dolly to your set-up. For a camera of your weight you don't need an expensive one. I've used this https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/280124-REG/Davis_Sanford_W3_W3_Dolly_with_3.html?sts=pi&pim=Y with a Toyo 810G and Toyo Robos.

Thomas

[Bernice Loui]

Tripod dollies with good wheels and brakes can work, difficulty with them is if the camera position needs to get up close with a position that demand the camera support to be under the still life item table.

Using a GOOD Foba studio stand is not fully appreciated until the image making requirements notes how easily the Foba simply works in these demanding conditions. No tripod made can match the ability of a GOOD Foba stand with the proper head (Majestic does OK on this) in the studio.


Bernice

[tgtaylor]

that's why, as Doremus pointed, a monorail is the best choice. Instead of moving the whole camera set-up forward you just slide it forward on the rails. That assumes, of course, that you have a stable tripod that wont tip over. You can sandbag the dolly.

Thomas

[Tin Can]

Rail Horseman have a useful geared tripod foot than can move the entire camera fore and aft, for focus aid

I am using that feature now, by mounting another foot on top, so I can use it with any camera, all sitting on Majestic gear

I am doing close work with old plate cameras this month, behind is a 60" soft box, not fired, I have one bigger

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49507243547_c4333cfa7a_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2iqMyGB)Seneca Chautauqua Uno (https://flic.kr/p/2iqMyGB) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[Ken Lee]

"Any other advice you might offer for lens choices would also be appreciated."

How much enlargement ?

Lenses corrected to accommodate close work will prove themselves when making huge prints, especially color prints. They exhibit fewer aberrations and other flaws. If we're merely enlarging B&W 4x5 film to 11x14 or 16x20 we may not see a substantial difference.

This idea was first suggested to me by our esteemed forum member Emmanuel Bigler, a professor of Optics. I tested it myself just to be sure :rolleyes:

Most of the photos here (http://www.kennethmorrislee.com/AntiquesGallery.php) were made with 4x5 b&w film. Looking over the 16x20 prints there is no appreciable difference in sharpness between those made with Sironar Macro/APO Nikkor/Fujinon A/Vintage Tessar/APO Sironar S/Apochromat Artar/Fujinon Soft Focus. At larger sizes, perhaps the differences would emerge.

Where I have noticed the most important difference is blur rendition (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/lenses/index.php#Vintage) - but that's a separate well-worn discussion. This image (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/TessarSpecularHighlights.php) was made with a very old non-coated Tessar.

[Peter De Smidt]

Ken gives good advice...and takes excellent pictures!

[JMO]

Ken gives good advice...and takes excellent pictures!

Indeed, many of Ken's "around the house" and other close-up images have been primary inspiration for my interest in this new direction for my photography. So far, which is only 7 years or so with LF and MF film cameras, most of my images have been in national parks and other landscapes. For this new table top work I am planning and expecting that it will be mostly on B&W film, but I do have various types of color film and feel that I over-purchased when I first decided to try LF (so won't mind using some of it up as needed). My thanks for the additional tips about camera support gear, as I should have room in my basement for a studio stand, so I'll see what I can locate. As for lighting, I am thinking the newer LED technology now available would be the way to go, and especially if I'm mostly using B&W film?

[JMO]

"Any other advice you might offer for lens choices would also be appreciated."

How much enlargement ?

Lenses corrected to accommodate close work will prove themselves when making huge prints, especially color prints. They exhibit fewer aberrations and other flaws. If we're merely enlarging B&W 4x5 film to 11x14 or 16x20 we may not see a substantial difference.

This idea was first suggested to me by our esteemed forum member Emmanuel Bigler, a professor of Optics. I tested it myself just to be sure :rolleyes:

Most of the photos here (http://www.kennethmorrislee.com/AntiquesGallery.php) were made with 4x5 b&w film. Looking over the 16x20 prints there is no appreciable difference in sharpness between those made with Sironar Macro/APO Nikkor/Fujinon A/Vintage Tessar/APO Sironar S/Apochromat Artar/Fujinon Soft Focus. At larger sizes, perhaps the differences would emerge.

Where I have noticed the most important difference is blur rendition (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/lenses/index.php#Vintage) - but that's a separate well-worn discussion. This image (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/TessarSpecularHighlights.php) was made with a very old non-coated Tessar.

Ken, thanks for these helpful comments, too. I don't expect to ever enlarge to prints greater than 16x20in. I also have Fujinon A lenses in 150, 180 and 240mm; as well as APO-Sironar-S in 135, 150, 180 and 210 (for my landscapes); and finally Fujinon SF in 180mm. I love some of your images taken using these SF lenses. Based on the suggestions from earlier posts in this thread, I've ordered an APO Makro Symmar HM 120mm...

[Peter De Smidt]

I'd start with the Fujinon A lenses.

[Tin Can]

THere must be more ARKAY stands near you. Made in Milwaukee. Most people don't want them, I have 2

THey are easy to shorten to fit your ceiling, but make it as tall as possible, the cable needs to be shortened also

There are 2 tricks to the ARKAY I learned the hard way

To move it, raise the arm as high as it goes, which puts the lead weight almost on the floor

Then tip it over which is easy with the lead at bottom, the lead will slide out after letting the arm hook off The post is also removable, the cast iron base is heavy, but all a one man job for most

Transport in 4 pieces, base, lead, arm, post

Cut to length once...

Reverse

When first using an ARKAY always make sure the arm is not a lever with with a big camera on it. They can tip over if you ignore physics

I almost dropped an 8X10 Horseman

A FOBA is better and you pay for it

[Ken Lee]

Ken, thanks for these helpful comments, too. I don't expect to ever enlarge to prints greater than 16x20in. I also have Fujinon A lenses in 150, 180 and 240mm; as well as APO-Sironar-S in 135, 150, 180 and 210 (for my landscapes); and finally Fujinon SF in 180mm. I love some your images taken using these SF lenses. Based on the suggestions from earlier posts in this thread, I've ordered an APO Makro Symmar HM 120mm...

You're most welcome.

As you probably know, the Fujinon A series are corrected for 1:5, which makes them quite sharp from very close to infinity. Similarly, the APO-Sironar-S line is corrected for 1:10 which accomplishes much the same task. These lenses should prove perfectly adequate for what you want to do.

Additionally, the Sironar-S has lovely blur rendition: for close work at f/8 they're really hard to beat. For example, this shot (http://www.kennethmorrislee.com/Antiques.php?img=30) was made with a 150mm APO Sironar-S at that setting. I suspect they have what esteemed forum member Christopher Perez describes as very very neutral out of focus rendition (https://photosketchpad.blogspot.com/2019/04/nikon-75-150mm-f35-point-light-source.html) in his lens testing, due to ideal correction of spherical aberration.

If I had unlimited funds I'd hire someone to replace the irises of all my LF lenses with Waterhouse stop (http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Waterhouse_stops) inserts. But that's another conversation :o

[Daniel Unkefer]

Suggest getting a GOOD studio camera stand instead of any tripod for table top work as the GOOD ones (Foba, Linhof, Arkay and etc. Not one of those tiny rink-dinky pretend studio camera stands, those do NOT work very well) are far easier to maneuver and deal with to meet the demands of table top image making if space allows. Good wheels and brakes, ease of camera up-down, side to side can make ALL the difference for this kind of work.

Most common lighting for table top is a BIG soft box, much larger than the items being photographed is common. This is also where strobe works good as most of the time still life objects don't move much if at all and they don't easily flinch (like portrait sitters when the strobe goes FLASH) when the strobe goes off. Strobe allows better control of film exposure, precise control of color on film is possible, demands of shutter speed accuracy and consistency is no where as great. Get to know reflectors of white, aluminized, mixed, and black (negative fill) of various made up shapes and their holders.. they ARE your best friends for this king of image making. Subject item positioning and camera position must be driven by image on the ground glass. First time ya do this, it will become apparent why this must be. Bernice

+1. Every studio needs a camera stand and lighting suited to the jobs at hand. In my studio it is Sinar, Broncolor, and Plaubel.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49259099513_1d5f3864b6_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2i3RL8c)Plaubel Peco Profia Eye Candy (https://flic.kr/p/2i3RL8c) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr