Is a macro lens as versatile as a digital macro

[Gnomon]

Hi

First time posting, I have only been using LF for a year, I took it up in my third year of a photo degree, and I am still accruing equipment.

I mainly shoot tabletop and still life, portraits and city and landscape for fun. My next purchases is 240mm for this purpose. My most used digital lens is 90mm macro.

I am looking for advice; I wonder if a 240mm macro will be more useful and versatile than normal 240mm. I love looking at texture, form and colour. I am really wondering if a LF macro will be good for portraits and I may only focus down to 1:2 and I mainly use studio flash.

I use a Toyo view GX and have an anther Toyo rail to get long bellows extension of about 80cm.

Gratefully for any thoughts.

Dave

[Mark Sawyer]

First, be aware that a 240mm macro will take 480mm of bellows to focus at 1:1. People tend to use shorter lenses, say, 90-150mm for 4x5.

If you're working at 1:1, process lenses and enlarger lenses are optimized for that range. Large format macro lenses tend to be pretty expensive, and you my well get by with one of those alternatives which cost a third or less than say, a macro Sironar or Nikor AM. You may already have one you can try.

And at smaller apertures, also considering the bellows extension and reciprocity failure, your exposure times will likely mean you don't need a shutter other than a lens cap.

[Drew Wiley]

I'd recommend a versatile close-range corrected plasmat usable at any distance range. These will perform better close-up than general-purpose studio plasmats, but are also superb all the way out to infinity. The two I have in mind, and myself have enjoyed using for several decades, are the 240/9 Fujinon A (multicoated) and the Schneider G-Claron 250/9 (single-coated). Very similar except a tiny bit of contrast difference. The Fuji comes in a no.0 shutter, and the GC in a no.1. The only complaint some people might have, but which has never bothered me, is that the maximum focus aperture is smaller than general purpose f/5.6 plastmats. I wouldn't worry about anything more specialized like the Nikkor AM unless you're trying to photograph diamonds or bugs, etc.

[Greg]

IMO you can't go wrong with either a 150mm Schneider Repro-Claron (less coverage) or a 150mm G-Claron (more coverage). Even in a shutter they can be had for bargain prices, especially the Repro-Claron.

[Dan Fromm]

Wrong question.

Right question: is the digital camera you have with a 90 mm lens better suited to the macro work you want to do than any 4x5 camera? Only you can answer this.

I agree with the suggestions that a 240 mm lens is probably too long and that a 150 would be better because it will require less extensiion.

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Good question. Similarly, I just plowed along thinking in the 35mm / digital frame of mind and a year or so ago bought a 180mm Rodenstock Sinar Macro Sinaron 5.6 I haven't had the time or project to put to use yet. So it sounds as though I probably made another mistake? Yipes! And if the extension formula is 2X (based on the above) then I"m better off with the Fuji 240 A, too. If so... I am more than happy to put that Rodenstock up for sale.

[Dan Fromm]

And if the extension formula is 2X (based on the above) then I"m better off with the Fuji 240 A, too.

Pardon my confusion. At 1:1, a 180 needs 360 mm extension, a 240 needs 480. Why would you be better off with a 240? What have I missed?

[Tin Can]

I am sure the usual suspects will not accept my usual methods

Here is a 1 to 1 Macro, shot 7 years ago and I lost the file, but just downloaded it from this site

It was shot on 5X7 with a normal lens, scanned on V700, printed at Costco to 20X30" for a couple bucks. This file is from 2012 iPod snap of that Digi Print and now here again. I had it on my wall for a year, then made aa 4X5 vertical internegative from original neg to make a positive printed negative. I vastly prefer my wet prints made from the x-Ray internegative

My point is just shoot a macro or 10 with any good normal lens, you may like the results

I was once going to buy the 2 lenses you are looking at, not anymore.

I may find my 3 to 1 11X14" X-Ray neg and print of a Watergate ashtray or maybe not...it was shot with 360mm lens on a long focus Deardorff, 6' of bellows almost

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50919324468_826aab2fbe_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kzyRao)COSTCO 20X30 360DPI Bulb 1 (2014_11_19 06_51_07 UTC) (https://flic.kr/p/2kzyRao) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[Gnomon]

Thank you for the replies

I am fixed on the focal length as I do not want any distortion, I have 485mm of bellows extension on my Toyo so 150mm or 240mm at 1:1 are both 2 stops of light added.

I was wondering if a 240mm macro will be good for still life and portraits.

This is the kind of LF I do ⬇️

212417 212418 212419

[Bernice Loui]

With either a 150mm or 240mm lens distortion at "macro" reproduction ratios are a non-issue If the lens used is an APO process lens (dialyte formula, APO artar, APO ronar, APO nikkor and similar). These are most common in barrel, but also come in shutter. Speciality "macro" lenses are ok, but cost lots more and no where near as easy to obtain. At life size or 1 to 1, image circle is much a non-issue as the image circle about doubles at these reproduction ratios. As for the Fujinon A thing, the APO process lens remains a much better value due to the internet famed notoriety of the Fujinon A. Having owned and used both 180mm & 240mm Fujinon A in the past, it is good but not that good. It does offer a larger image circle over an APO process lens, in these reproduction ratios, that image circle advantage is irrelevant. Both have been passed on to another who can better use these Fujinon A series lenses. The larger image circle throws more stray light on to the sides of the bellows causing reflections back into the film effectively reducing contrast. There will be visual differences between using a 150mm -vs- 240mm focal length lens with the same reproduction ratio on film.

While a shorter focal length lens requires less bellows draw and camera extension compare to a longer focal length lens, the longer focal length lens has a distinct advantage in lighting by allowing more distance between the subject to camera lens. This is one of those not often considered aspects of doing close up images.

The great challenge of using a camera with LOTs of bellows and camera extension is stability of the entire rig. Camera to subject support is crucial if constant lighting is used. On a Sinar monorail, a standard could be used as the subject to be imaged support board or the rail can be mounted as a copy stand both methods will enforce movements of the subject and camera to be mostly synchronized.

One trick that can help is to increase exposure time allowing the film to essentially average the image being recorded ignoring very short duration movements. The alternative is to use electronic flash. Multi flash can help gain more effective light to the film recording the image. Keep in mind, light loss at 1 to 1 or life size will be two f-stops. This means if your lens set aperture is f16 the actual aperture at the film will be f32. Longer exposure times allows using a lens cap as the shutter allowing use of a barrel lens and negating the need for a shutter.

APO process lens works good for Portraits and other images.. question is does the image rendered meet your image goals?
It is really that simple. The only way to really know is to try the specific lens under your image making needs, goals and expectations. It the APO process lens does not work, does not meet your image goals, figure out what is dis-likes and figure out what alternative could meet these needs and alternatives better.



Bernice



Thank you for the replies

I am fixed on the focal length as I do not want any distortion, I have 485mm of bellows extension on my Toyo so 150mm or 240mm at 1:1 are both 2 stops of light added.

I was wondering if a 240mm macro will be good for still life and portraits.

This is the kind of LF I do ⬇️

212417 212418 212419

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Dan: BECAUSE I already had a Fuji 240 A for other purposes and perhaps didn't need to spend the dough. Simple as that. But yes I can do the same 2X math and I get your point. THank you.

[Drew Wiley]

There is also a 180 Fuji A. The problem with portraits is that these kinds of lenses are super sharp, and unless you're using a backdrop, the out-of-focus background rendering or "bokeh" is not very smooth or pleasant. But the 240 focal length is a lot nicer perspective for head and shoulders shots. But are you really commonly going clear to 1:1 in terms of close-range use? If you're comfortable working at a long bellows extension, and your camera remains stable, why not? I do it quite often with my Sinar monorails.

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Good info. Thanks! I bought the 240A for a small, portable lens with a good rep, and like the lens. One of the articles I've seen did recommend it for portraits, but didn't discuss the bokeh - if fuzzy memory serves me right. I figure to try the Rodinar Macro before making a decision on whether to keep it. My goal was less for macro per se than simply still life.

ANd aren't the Nikon M's Tessar lenses and also similarly sharp? On the other hand, the cost of soft lenses (see Igorcamera.com) ... modern Cooke etc. to use in portraits tends to crank higher and higher. I think a new Cooke is cranking in around $5,000. Ouch.

[Bernice Loui]

Not a lot wrong with the 240mm Fujinon A if it meets what you need. Should be fine at infinity and to life size 1 to 1. Your Toyo has enough bellows to work at life size making the other challenges camera support, lighting and all related to that. In the case of table top, the 240mm continues it's advantage due to distance between what you're trying to image and lighting it. Again what is so often not considered, how ya gonna light what your trying to photograph. IMO, in this case lighting and set up is FAR more important than all that lens stuff.

BTW, back in the doing lots of table top images on 4x5 days, 240mm was the far preferred focal length. The lens was either a 9-1/2" APO artar or 240mm APO ronar on a Sinar P, typical taking aperture was f16 to f32 with camera movements (always done), bellows factor correction as needed.

As for Portraits using the 240mm Fujinon A, just use it and see how it goes. If for some reasons the image results does not work for you, then it is time to consider something else. Ignore all that hype found in the web, make images with the tools in hand now, carefully evaluate what the results are before deciding different tools are needed.

Nikkor M is often used as a longer than normal focal length lens. Works fine as a normal length lens depending on what is considered or desired asa "normal" format focal length. They tend to be smaller than the common f5.6 Plasmat due to their smaller full aperture. They are a fav of folder cameras folks due to their small size and good optical performance. Notable to Nikon LF lenses in general, they tend to have higher contrast rendition than other brand of lenses from that time. This is neither better or worst, it is simply an image preference and lens flavor you'll need to decide on. Vast majority of modern LF lenses made by the big four Schneider, Fujinon, Rodenstock, Nikon were intended to be used daily by working photographs with demands for image quality. That was the bar all LF optics manufactures had to meet or they would not sell to a market base that was trying to put food on their table, roof over their head and studio and keep paying clients happy and good with the images produced. Essentially, don't obsess over is the lens "sharp"..

The modern Cooke PS945 is good, at a $. My take on that is lighting, capturing expression of the portrait sitter and a very long list of other factors are more important than focusing on lens choice. What most portrait sitters and enthusiast tend to value in portraits is expression and lighting rendition. While the lens is part of this, it should NOT be the obsession for making portraits.


:)
Bernice




Good info. Thanks! I bought the 240A for a small, portable lens with a good rep, and like the lens. One of the articles I've seen did recommend it for portraits, but didn't discuss the bokeh - if fuzzy memory serves me right. I figure to try the Rodinar Macro before making a decision on whether to keep it. My goal was less for macro per se than simply still life.

ANd aren't the Nikon M's Tessar lenses and also similarly sharp? On the other hand, the cost of soft lenses (see Igorcamera.com) ... modern Cooke etc. to use in portraits tends to crank higher and higher. I think a new Cooke is cranking in around $5,000. Ouch.

[Gnomon]

Hi Bernice

You have been very helpful, and some darn good advice too, topped with good practical experience.

Thank you very much

Dave

[Drew Wiley]

OK, as per Nikkor M's. They're also small, and very sharp, contrasty, and superbly color-corrected. But they're an improved tessar design, and nowhere near as good at near macro distances, whereas Fuji A's are marketed as "Super Plasmats" specially close-range corrected, with bigger image circles than Nikkor M's (for example, the 240 Fuji A will easily cover 8x10 film at infinity, while an even longer 300 Nikkor M barely does). I own and use both types.

[Gnomon]

OK, as per Nikkor M's. They're also small, and very sharp, contrasty, and superbly color-corrected. But they're an improved tessar design, and nowhere near as good at near macro distances, whereas Fuji A's are marketed as "Super Plasmats" specially close-range corrected, with bigger image circles than Nikkor M's (for example, the 240 Fuji A will easily cover 8x10 film at infinity, while an even longer 300 Nikkor M barely does). I own and use both types.

Thanks, Drew

That is also very interesting, I research to death whatever I buy, i think a lens that is optimised for 1:5 to infinity suit my work. I am now looking at Fujinon A 240 and Rodenstock Sironar-S 240 which is a little higher price tag.

Dave

[Bernice Loui]

ALL of the f5.6 Plasmats from the big four (Fujinon, Rodenstock, Nikon, Schneider) are far more similar than different. There are slight differences, but essentially more the same than different.

BTW, the Fujinon A is a 6 element Plasmat.


Bernice



Thanks, Drew

That is also very interesting, I research to death whatever I buy, i think a lens that is optimised for 1:5 to infinity suit my work. I am now looking at Fujinon A 240 and Rodenstock Sironar-S 240 which is a little higher price tag.

Dave