Focusing at 1:1 magnification

[unityofsaints]

Hi,

I haven't done any closeup work since I had a 4x5" Sinar about 7 years ago. What I did then was add an intermediate standard and second bellows to ensure I had double the bellows draw. It was a little fiddly to focus on such a long rail but I ended up with some decent still life closeups on FP3000b (R.I.P!).

Now I'm on a 8x10" Tachihara and trying to get some similar shots as the weather is too poor to head out for landscapes. Somewhat embarassingly, I can't get to that 2x focal length 1:1 magnification! What am I doing wrong? I have about 500mm of bellows so I should have enough to get either my 121mm or 180mm to focus, maybe not the 250mm but should be close, right? All I get on the ground glass is a very blurry and far away looking rectangle. As a workaround I am using my 480mm lens at the minimum focus distance but obviously that's not magnified enough.

What am I doing wrong? My understanding is that image circle increases closer than infinity so since all my lenses cover 8x10" I shouldn't have any problems there.

[Bob Salomon]

Hi,

I haven't done any closeup work since I had a 4x5" Sinar about 7 years ago. What I did then was add an intermediate standard and second bellows to ensure I had double the bellows draw. It was a little fiddly to focus on such a long rail but I ended up with some decent still life closeups on FP3000b (R.I.P!).

Now I'm on a 8x10" Tachihara and trying to get some similar shots as the weather is too poor to head out for landscapes. Somewhat embarassingly, I can't get to that 2x focal length 1:1 magnification! What am I doing wrong? I have about 500mm of bellows so I should have enough to get either my 121mm or 180mm to focus, maybe not the 250mm but should be close, right? All I get on the ground glass is a very blurry and far away looking rectangle. As a workaround I am using my 480mm lens at the minimum focus distance but obviously that's not magnified enough.

What am I doing wrong? My understanding is that image circle increases closer than infinity so since all my lenses cover 8x10" I shouldn't have any problems there.

If your camera is set for 1:1 for the lens you are using then move the camera towards or away from the subject until it is sharp. If you try focusing the front or rear standards then you will change the lens to film distance and not be 1:1.

[Mark Woods]

You can always use a diopter on your lens.

[Dan Fromm]

To expand a little on Bob's reply in post #2 above, the first thing to do is set extension to get the desired magnification. Set extension -- lens board to film plane distance is a very good approximation to 2* focal length. For the 121, 242 mm. For the 180, which will probably do better closeup, 360 mm. Then focus by moving the camera, as Bob suggested. Moving the standards (either or both) to focus will change magnification. Once you've got more-or-less good focus by moving the camera, you can move either standard a tiny bit (but no more) to get good focus. If you need exactly 1:1, check to make sure that you have it exactly -- put a ruler in your intended plane of best focus, verify that its image on the GG is the right size -- before shooting.

[Oslolens]

With a 4x5" you will cover 4x5" at 1:1. To cover the same 4x5" subject, use the 121mm lens at 484mm bellows and ca 242mm distance. Focus as described further up.

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

[Tin Can]

Finally something a Horseman can do that a Sinar cannot

Macro Focus Rail made from off the shelf Horseman 14" rail with 2 tripod feet and a QR

This is heavy duty weighs over 3 lbs

There are many made for 35mm

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50251207931_70d9395306_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2jywzoK)Horseman Focus Rail (https://flic.kr/p/2jywzoK) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[Dan Fromm]

With a 4x5" you will cover 4x5" at 1:1. To cover the same 4x5" subject, use the 121mm lens at 484mm bellows and ca 242mm distance. Focus as described further up.

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

Huh? At 1:1, film plane to subject distance is, neglecting internodal distance, 4*focal length, rear node to subject is 2*focal length and front node to subject is 2*focal length. Please check your arithmetic and assumptions.

[Oslolens]

Huh? At 1:1, film plane to subject distance is, neglecting internodal distance, 4*focal length, rear node to subject is 2*focal length and front node to subject is 2*focal length. Please check your arithmetic and assumptions.You are right in your description, but wrong in the assumption: Thread is regarding 8x10", not 4x5". As a side note, I read Weston used a 210mm on a pepper picture. This was (miss) described as a wide angle in a discussion, but as it was macro-work, the angle of view was, by my calculations close to 210mm on 135-film.

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

[Dan Fromm]

You are right in your description, but wrong in the assumption: Thread is regarding 8x10", not 4x5". As a side note, I read Weston used a 210mm on a pepper picture. This was (miss) described as a wide angle in a discussion, but as it was macro-work, the angle of view was, by my calculations close to 210mm on 135-film.

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

I beg your pardon? The relationships between focal length, magnification and the relevant distances are independent of format.

[Oslolens]

I beg your pardon? The relationships between focal length, magnification and the relevant distances are independent of format.Yes, agree. I see that I could have put in 8x10" in the sentence:If you are to cover the same 4x5" with 8x10" to make it clearer

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

[ic-racer]

At one-to-one, your film is going to be very close to 'the point of no return' whereby the film can be too close to the subject (less than 4X Focal Length) and there will be NO FOCUSED IMAGE no matter where the lens is positioned.

As suggested above, try focusing by moving the entire camera or moving the subject.

This the same when enlarging to one-to-one. You would need to move the entire head up and down to focus. Moving just the lens can, if the negative is closer than 4x focal length to the paper, produce no focused image no matter where the lens stage focus is positioned.

[Dan Fromm]

Yes, agree. I see that I could have put in 8x10" in the sentence:If you are to cover the same 4x5" with 8x10" to make it clearer

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

More word salad and this




With a 4x5" you will cover 4x5" at 1:1. To cover the same 4x5" subject, use the 121mm lens at 484mm bellows and ca 242mm distance. Focus as described further up.

is still mistaken.

[Mark Sawyer]

The only 121mm lens I know of is the Super Angulon. I have one and tried it long ago as a close-up lens (as I wanted something with lots of movements) and found it performed very poorly as a macro. I never tried it reversed though.

Weston's 210 lens used for his veggies and shells was an uncoated 210mm Zeiss Tessar, very common and inexpensive. For 1:1 on 8x10, I'd recommend a modern coated process lens of 150mm to 240mm, as they're high quality, optimized for the 1:1 range, and inexpensive. Or an enlarging lens, if you have one around.

[Bob Salomon]

The only 121mm lens I know of is the Super Angulon. I have one and tried it long ago as a close-up lens (as I wanted something with lots of movements) and found it performed very poorly as a macro. I never tried it reversed though.

Weston's 210 lens used for his veggies and shells was an uncoated 210mm Zeiss Tessar, very common and inexpensive. For 1:1 on 8x10, I'd recommend a modern coated process lens of 150mm to 240mm, as they're high quality, optimized for the 1:1 range, and inexpensive. Or an enlarging lens, if you have one around.

Or a dedicated macro lens like the 180 Apo Macro Sironar that is corrected for 1:5 to 5:1 or the older 210mm Makto Sironar that is corrected for 1:3 to 3:1. With the latter you swap the front and rear groups around according to the pictographs on the barrel. At 1:1 the position of the groups do not matter. With the 180 the groups are not changed.

[Mark Sawyer]

Or a dedicated macro lens like the 180 Apo Macro Sironar that is corrected for 1:5 to 5:1 or the older 210mm Makto Sironar that is corrected for 1:3 to 3:1. With the latter you swap the front and rear groups around according to the pictographs on the barrel. At 1:1 the position of the groups do not matter. With the 180 the groups are not changed.

Hi, Bob! Just curious, is this an indication that the 180mm Apo Macro Sironar is symmetrical, while the 210mm Macro Sironar is not?

[Ken Lee]

A 180mm lens on 8x10 gives the same horizontal angle of view as a 90mm lens on 4x5, which is the same horizontal angle of view as a 30mm lens on a 35mm or "full frame" camera. (As a rule of thumb, with respect to horizontal viewing angle, we can divide by 6 to convert from 8x10 to full-frame).

On a 35mm or full-frame camera, a 30mm lens is considered wide-angle and at close distance exhibits foreshortening, an exaggerated perspective where the foreground appears disproportionately larger than the background. For example, see the image below where a few fingers appear as tall as the subject's entire torso.

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/Foreshort.jpg

To achieve that foreshortened look, the shorter the lens and the closer it is to the subject, the better.

[Bob Salomon]

Hi, Bob! Just curious, is this an indication that the 180mm Apo Macro Sironar is symmetrical, while the 210mm Macro Sironar is not?

To be sure you should ask Rodenstock. I no longer have the drawings. There was also a 120mm Apo Macro Sironar also corrected for 1:5 to 5:1.

[Oren Grad]

Hi, Bob! Just curious, is this an indication that the 180mm Apo Macro Sironar is symmetrical, while the 210mm Macro Sironar is not?

The cross-section published by Rodenstock for the 120 and 180 Apo-Macro-Sironar is not symmetrical.

[Armin Seeholzer]

The cross-section published by Rodenstock for the 120 and 180 Apo-Macro-Sironar is not symmetrical.

The drawings of the 120/180mm looks very similar to the old ones 210/300mm, just the fixation looks a bit changed, and yes they are not symmetrical, but not so far away to be so!

[Kiwi7475]

The Nikon Nikkor AM 210mm f/5.6 ED is also a good option and much cheaper than the Apo Sironar. There’s also a 120mm version. At 1:1 and f22 they more than cover 8x10.

But I think it’s more practical to use them with 4x5 to avoid foreshortening— obviously that depends on what the subject is (shape/geometry).

[Bob Salomon]

The Nikon Nikkor AM 210mm f/5.6 ED is also a good option and much cheaper than the Apo Sironar. There’s also a 120mm version. At 1:1 and f22 they more than cover 8x10.

But I think it’s more practical to use them with 4x5 to avoid foreshortening— obviously that depends on what the subject is (shape/geometry).
Are you talking about the Apo Macro Sironar or the Apo Sironar N or the Apo Sironar N or the Apo Sironar W or Apo Sironar or the Makro Sironar? All were available in 210mm but only the Apo Macro Sironar and the Apo Macro Sironar Digital were/are available in 120mm.

[Kiwi7475]

Are you talking about the Apo Macro Sironar or the Apo Sironar N or the Apo Sironar N or the Apo Sironar W or Apo Sironar or the Makro Sironar? All were available in 210mm but only the Apo Macro Sironar and the Apo Macro Sironar Digital were/are available in 120mm.

Apo Macro Sironar digital.

The Nikkor AM ED can be found for about 2/3 of that one, of course that’s just a general observation as one can sometimes get lucky. But the Nikkor AM ED are great for macro.

[Bob Salomon]

Apo Macro Sironar digital.

The Nikkor AM ED can be found for about 2/3 of that one, of course that’s just a general observation as one can sometimes get lucky. But the Nikkor AM ED are great for macro.

But you are comparing a digital macro lens to a non digital one.
The proper comparison is to the 120 Apo Macro Sironar which is an analog lens for 1:5 to 5:1.

Nikon never made any view type lenses for digital applications.

[Kiwi7475]

But you are comparing a digital macro lens to a non digital one.
The proper comparison is to the 120 Apo Macro Sironar which is an analog lens for 1:5 to 5:1.

Nikon never made any view type lenses for digital applications.

I am comparing the price. The Nikkor is at least 35% cheaper, generally, than the Apo macro sironar, in either its digital version or not, and is also designed for 1:1.

[Bob Salomon]

I am comparing the price. The Nikkor is at least 35% cheaper, generally, than the Apo macro sironar, in either its digital version or not, and is also designed for 1:1.

Once again, the Apo Macro Sironar is optimized from 1:5 to 5:1. The Nikon is corrected for 1:1.

[Kiwi7475]

Once again, the Apo Macro Sironar is optimized from 1:5 to 5:1. The Nikon is corrected for 1:1.


Once again, the Apo Macro Sironar is optimized from 1:5 to 5:1. The Nikon is corrected for 1:1.

I have not compared both far beyond 1:1, but given how much you end up closing the aperture, most of the time, I don’t know that any significant difference will show up. Do you know from experience that they are going to perform differently for any practical purposes within that range?

The Nikkor is a symmetrical design and according to this also optimized between 1:5 to 5:1:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_LF.html

“The AM Nikkors (there also is a big brother, the 210 AM) are designed for close-ups with peak performance in the range 1:5 to 5:1 magnification. “

However I can’t claim it’s accurate.

Ultimately I don’t think you can optimize a lens design over such a wide range. You have an optimum magnification performance always, and then performance degrades around there. I suspect the quoted range of magnifications is the window over which the performance is acceptable, but it doesn’t mean that it’s constant across 1:5 to 5:1.

In the end, Bob, I am just trying to make OP aware of this option which is more economical while being responsive of his original request for “1:1 magnification”.

[Heroique]

I love my Schneider 150mm f/9 g-claron lens, a process lens w/ a simple design and optimized for flat surfaces at 1:1. (But I love it even more for its tiny size, light weight, and general landscape use – it goes into my pack on one-lens backpacking trips if I see strenuous climbing on the map.)

It has moderate coverage for 4x5 (about 190mm), but the longer FL g-clarons can work with 5x7 and I think 8x10. It's easy to focus in brighter conditions, and I've never shot it wider than f/22 – I suspect its image quality might quickly drop-off if I opened-up closer to its widest f/9 aperture. Maybe I'll try some day.

Here's an image approaching 1:1 – the lovely bark of a ponderosa pine. I added more than a stop for compensation. The small-and-light lens makes demanding macro work easier, though I don’t remember this shot being too difficult. I asked the ponderosa to remain as still as possible and it cooperated.

207034

Tachi 4x5
Schneider 150mm/9 g-claron
Ilford HP5+ (in Kodak HC-110)
Epson 4990/Epson Scan

[Bob Salomon]

I have not compared both far beyond 1:1, but given how much you end up closing the aperture, most of the time, I don’t know that any significant difference will show up. Do you know from experience that they are going to perform differently for any practical purposes within that range?

The Nikkor is a symmetrical design and according to this also optimized between 1:5 to 5:1:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_LF.html

“The AM Nikkors (there also is a big brother, the 210 AM) are designed for close-ups with peak performance in the range 1:5 to 5:1 magnification. “

However I can’t claim it’s accurate.

Ultimately I don’t think you can optimize a lens design over such a wide range. You have an optimum magnification performance always, and then performance degrades around there. I suspect the quoted range of magnifications is the window over which the performance is acceptable, but it doesn’t mean that it’s constant across 1:5 to 5:1.

In the end, Bob, I am just trying to make OP aware of this option which is more economical while being responsive of his original request for “1:1 magnification”.

One sells used for about $600.00 and the other about $900.00. The more expensive one far outsold the cheaper one. Performance accounts for that difference. Plus Rodenstock actively pursued large format sales. Nikon didn’t. Their efforts went into 35mm, microscopes, etc..

[Kiwi7475]

One sells used for about $600.00 and the other about $900.00. The more expensive one far outsold the cheaper one. Performance accounts for that difference. Plus Rodenstock actively pursued large format sales. Nikon didn’t. Their efforts went into 35mm, microscopes, etc..

I’m done with this thread. Bye.

[ic-racer]

All I get on the ground glass is a very blurry and far away looking rectangle.

Any luck getting it in focus yet?

[unityofsaints]

Any luck getting it in focus yet?

Yes, thanks to the tips in this thread I've confirmed focus at 1:1 on my 180 and 250mm lenses. Now that I've done it it's easy, reminds me of working distance on small format macro lenses.