Looking for 5x7 macro lens recommendation

[Mike in NY]

Hello all, I need to take photographs of various decorative objects that range from 4 to 6 inches tall and about two inches wide with my 5x7 field camera, and I'd like to fill most of the negative with each object's height. Can anyone recommend a lens that would be up to the task? Many thanks in advance.

[Eric Woodbury]

I'd probably use my Nikkor 90mm.

[Mark Darragh]

How much extension do you available on your field camera? It may be an important factor in deciding which focal lengths are useable.

If you are looking for a dedicated lens for close up work, an 180mm APO-Macro-Sironar or Makro Symmar, or Nikkor AM 210mm would all work. A Fujinon 180mm A would also be an excellent option.

[Mike in NY]

I have a 14-inch bellows draw.

[grat]

Then anything below a 175mm (14" is 355mm, half of 350 is 175) should allow you to reach 1:1.

There will be a bellows factor that you'll have to factor into your exposure.

[Mike in NY]

Thank you; this has been very helpful.

[Joseph Kashi]

Look for a highly symmetrical lens as these tend to work better at 1:1. As you get close to 1:1 magnification, circle of good coverage increases markedly over the image circle at infinity. Hence, a 150mm G-Claron or a 180mm Fujinon A (tight on bellows draw at 1:1 ) will fit your 14 inch bellows draw and provide good macro capabilities. I suspect that at 1:1, 150mm dialyte pattern lenses like a Red Dot Artar, S-K Repro-Claron, or an Apo-Ronar should cover 5x7 adequately even though they would not cover at infinity focus.

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. Will you be shooting in landscape or portrait orientation? If landscape, you'll work at a little over 1:1. If portrait, a little under 2:1.

1:1 needs total extension (~ flange to film distance) = twice focal length. 2:1 needs total extension = 3* focal length. You have 14" of draw, so you may need a lens with focal length ~ 7" if shooting landscape, ~ 5" if shooting portrait.

None of the lenses suggested so far will do the job, they're all too long. There aren't many 5"process lenses, the I can think of that will do is the 4" Artar. Not common but occasionally offered for sale, sometimes even in shutter. An alternative that's inexpensive and relatively easy to find is the 127/4.7 Tominon as sold on Polaroid Gel Cams (CU-5 and similar) and some oscilloscope cameras. All in shutter, very hard to reverse but in my experience are good enough mounted normally.

[Oren Grad]

Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider all offered 120mm macro lenses that, per specification, comfortably cover 5x7 at 1:1.

[Dan Fromm]

Oren, thanks for jogging my failing memory.

[Mike in NY]

Oren, would the Schneider lens that fits the bill be the Symmar S?

[Bernice Loui]

Not just lens or focal length. Using a camera with limited bellows and extension of aprox 14" and lenses in aprox 100mm (4") to 180mm (7") focal length will put the camera-lens aprox 150mm (~6") to 16" (~400mm) or not much more away from the subject / object..

~How will the object-subject be lighted / set-up?

Will the overall set up be stable and achieve what is needed?

One of the most difficult aspects of close-up photography is lighting and overall set up. Turns out, the ability of the camera drives a LOT of these factors, less so the lens.

IMO, lens of choice would be a APO process lens aka APO artar, APO ronar, APO nikkor and similar with no less than 240mm focal length to deal with the lighting and set up issues. Camera must accommodate what is needed to achieve this set up and lens focal length.


Bernice

[Mike in NY]

Between my Speedotron pack and heads, not to mention halogens, lighting is no problem, and the shoot will be staged on my 4 x 8 table top.

[Bob Salomon]

Between my Speedotron pack and heads, not to mention halogens, lighting is no problem, and the shoot will be staged on my 4 x 8 table top.

120, 180 Apo Macro Sironar or the older 210 and 300 Makro Sironar.
The first two are optimized for 1:5 to 5:1.
The other two were optimized for 1:3 to 3:1. These two requiring reversing the elements. Normal position for 1:3 to 1;1 and switched around for 1:1 to 3:1. Pictographs on the front and rear groups make this easy.

[Oren Grad]

Oren, would the Schneider lens that fits the bill be the Symmar S?

120 mm Makro-Symmar HM

Also, for completeness, full names for the others I mentioned:

120 mm Apo-Macro-Sironar
120 mm Nikkor-AM ED

[Bernice Loui]

Been there done this... will be curious as to the results..

Strobe heads and their light source is not small. Keep in mind these strobe heads are designed for much larger subjects. Alternative is to use a light box or set the whole thing up in a light tent. Both cases, lens shading is ReallY important due to the light source to lens to subject-objet distances.

~Then light metering will be "interesting"..


Bernice




Between my Speedotron pack and heads, not to mention halogens, lighting is no problem, and the shoot will be staged on my 4 x 8 table top.

[Daniel Unkefer]

The classic rule is that the diagonal length of your soft box determines the optimum box/subject shooting distance. A medium size box would prolly do you well. Recently I am using an old restored square Broncolor Pulso softbox and a silvered-or-white reflector on the opposite. At least this is a starting point.....

Of course there are a zillion ways to do it. A sheet of plexiglass and two sawhorses allow you to under light the subject. I have a FOBA shooting table I am slowly restoring which gives you a lot of options

I have a complete set of Rodenstock Apo Ronars in barrel, as well as a complete set of Schneider chrome Componons that I am enjoying using for this type of work :)

240mm to 300mm would be my first guesses for 5x7/13x18. I am looking forward to doing more of this in the future

[Bernice Loui]

Yes. This is a good starting point for soft box size. Of the soft boxes used back in the day, Broncolor light boxes are GOOD. The other light box that worked GOOD, Plume Wafer with the inner diffuser panel(s). Be aware the diffuser fabric can change color with age. Likely not a big deal these days due to the lesser demands of color rendition on color transparency film.

The alternative is to set up the whole thing in a diffusing light tent or BIG ring light or fiber optic lighting system (Elinchrom Fiber Lite System) with mini-stands for the fiber optic cables and their accessories (focusable lenses and such).

In all cases, proper lens shading is a must due to the proximity of the light source to lens.. The potential for lens flare and more is extreme.



Bernice



The classic rule is that the diagonal length of your soft box determines the optimum box/subject shooting distance. A medium size box would prolly do you well. Recently I am using an old restored square Broncolor Pulso softbox and a silvered-or-white reflector on the opposite. At least this is a starting point.....

Of course there are a zillion ways to do it. A sheet of plexiglass and two sawhorses allow you to under light the subject

I have a complete set of Rodenstock Apo Ronars in barrel, as well as a complete set of Schneider chrome Componons that I am enjoying using for this type of work :)

[Daniel Unkefer]

I have three or four Chimera soft boxes to fit Broncolors from small to XL including strip lights which is extra narrow box. These are GOOD too :) I will have to dig these out of storage

[Mike in NY]

Thank you for the suggestions about lighting; I appreciate your thinking about it and offering suggestions, but we're getting off topic. Metering won't be involved and neither will light boxes, since I'll be using collodion to make ferrotypes, which I've been making for years. I didn't mention it before because I didn't want to get off topic about Petzvals (which is the last thing I would use for this project), or discussions about collodion, ferrotypes, lighting, and exposure times, which I have plenty of experience with. So back to lenses... I normally use one of my 5x7 lenses to get within a couple of feet of small subject matter. But for this upcoming project I'll be shooting really small objects and my existing lenses can't fill the plate with the image. So thank you for the suggestions received so far; I appreciate it very much.

[Conrad . Marvin]

My 2 cents.....Macro Symmar 120 mm.

[Luis-F-S]

I'd do a 150 G-Claron Great coverage and you can reach 1:1 with 14" bellows and a slightly wide on 5x7 at distance. A whole lot more reasonable and accessible than some of the other ones suggested. Also, a little more separation to the subject. L

[Bernice Loui]

Simply add enough bellows and camera extension with your current lens being used.. then position the camera set up and lens as needed.

~Easily fill the entire plate. Camera is the real issue here, not lens alone.


Bernice




So back to lenses... I normally use one of my 5x7 lenses to get within a couple of feet of small subject matter. But for this upcoming project I'll be shooting really small objects and my existing lenses can't fill the plate with the image.

[Mike in NY]

Simply add enough bellows and camera extension with your current lens being used...
Bernice

I recently looked to see if I could find an extension rail appropriate for my particular camera, and have not been able to find one. I did, however, find someone who makes lens cones that I may be able to custom order, as they have a base that fits the size of my lens boards, and I can specify the opening for the diameter needed to mount the lens at the front end. But if that shouldn't work out, I want to know what my lens options are.

[Bernice Loui]

Or modify this camera to allow a LOT more bellows and camera extension that does not involve using an extender lens cone.

Or get another camera that has no real limits on camera extension or bellows.

IMO, the lens solution is not ideal in this case.


Bernice

[Mike in NY]

Or modify this camera to allow a LOT more bellows and camera extension that does not involve using an extender lens cone.

Or get another camera that has no real limits on camera extension or bellows.

IMO, the lens solution is not ideal in this case.


Bernice

Yes, you've made that clear, but buying another 5x7 camera isn't what I'm after. I thank you for sharing your opinion all the same.

[Mike in NY]

I'd do a 150 G-Claron Great coverage and you can reach 1:1 with 14" bellows and a slightly wide on 5x7 at distance. A whole lot more reasonable and accessible than some of the other ones suggested. Also, a little more separation to the subject. L

Luis, that's an interesting suggestion. After checking the 'bay, you're right that it's much more accessible than some of the lenses previously suggested. And for ferrotypes I'm not preoccupied with precision optics, so it might be worth looking into. I'll do an image search to see if I can find some close-ups made with this lens to get an idea of how it renders.

Everyone, thank you for the many suggestions. I've enjoyed looking up these lenses to learn more about them. I really appreciate folks taking the time to share their knowledge and recommendations.

[Mike in NY]

Luis, I found this thread here... an interesting read, and I like the close-up image that's included (but don't know if it's a crop).

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?117235-Difference-between-G-Claron-and-Repro-Claron

[Oren Grad]

Mike, if you're looking at process lenses, the 150 mm Computar will also easily cover 5x7 in close work. I use mine, stopped way down, as a wide for non-close work with whole plate.

[B.S.Kumar]

My humble suggestions, based on my philosophy of simple solutions:

1. If it is going to be collodion and ferrotyping, you aren't looking for 100 lpm in the corners. Wouldn't a symmetrical lens do the job adequately? Or perhaps an enlarging lens (in a shutter, if necessary)? In the early days of digital photography, Schneider labeled Componon lenses with the Digitar name...

2a. Does your camera have rear focusing? If your camera has only front focusing, you're going to have trouble maintaining focus and size simultaneously. That was the reason I sold my first 4x5 camera - a Linhof Super Technika V and bought a Sinar F2. Life became much easier...
If you have a sliding plate (like a macro rail) between the camera and the tripod, you can move the entire camera back and forth, rather than trying to move the tripod an inch at a time.
2b. I assume you are going to photograph the object like a typical product shot from a top angle? Does your camera have enough movements to ensure that the film plane is parallel to the obect? If that is not the case, a longer lens might be advisable to avoid distortion.

Kumar

[Mike in NY]

Mike, if you're looking at process lenses, the 150 mm Computar will also easily cover 5x7 in close work. I use mine, stopped way down, as a wide for non-close work with whole plate.

Thank you Oren. Although the decorative objects I'll be photographing are relatively flat (thereby reducing DOF problems), I'll still be so close that I may need a lens that can be stopped down to maximize DOF.

[Mike in NY]

Does your camera have rear focusing?

Yes, it does.


I assume you are going to photograph the object like a typical product shot from a top angle.

No, I'm not. These will be frontal shots of relatively flat, metal objects, so DOF is not a significant issue, especially if the lens can be stopped down.



If you have a sliding plate (like a macro rail) between the camera and the tripod, you can move the entire camera back and forth, rather than trying to move the tripod an inch at a time.


Since these will be frontal shots with the objects positioned on my 4'x8' table top, I'll just move them an inch at a time, instead of the tripod.

Thanks for thinking to ask these things, though.

[Mike in NY]

Lo and behold, I think I may have solved my own problem. By way of background, last October my father-in-law passed away, and I inherited his large camera collection. It consists mostly of MF cameras, but also some LF units as well. When I brought them home last fall, I stacked them on shelves in one of my storage rooms, with the goal of eventually taking a closer look at them (I've already put the Hasselblad to good use). So this evening it occurred to me that the press cameras in the collection probably had focal lengths in the neighborhood that we've been discussing on this thread, so I opened a few of them up to see what lenses were on them. The Speed Graphic had this Graflex Optar 135mm f/4.7 mounted in a Graphex/Wollensak shutter, with an aperture range going to f/32. Its lens board is obviously much smaller than the 4.5" boards used on my 5x7 camera, but I propped it up on my camera opening and taped it into place to see if I could fill most of the ground glass with a soft drink can. The lens did the job beautifully, from approximately 8 inches away, so I think this little fellow will fit the bill after I make a proper lens board for it. Many thanks to my father-in-law, RIP.

212764

[Jim Jones]

Some of the better folding Kodaks from the 1920s up were fitted with f/7.7 Kodak Anastigmats in various focal lengths (to later become the Kodak Ektar f/7.7 203mm.). These were four element four group symmetrical lenses touted as performing well at macro distances. Perhaps one with an appropriate focal length could be salvaged from one of these old folders.

[Joseph Kashi]

Some of the better folding Kodaks from the 1920s up were fitted with f/7.7 Kodak Anastigmats in various focal lengths (to later become the Kodak Ektar f/7.7 203mm.). These were four element four group symmetrical lenses touted as performing well at macro distances. Perhaps one with an appropriate focal length could be salvaged from one of these old folders.

I have two of the post-WWII 203 7.7 Ektars, one made in the US and one made in the UK. Both are excellent lenses at a very appealing price in shutter and both are factory-coated. However, as Dialyte-style lenses, the uncoated pre-WWII "Anastigmat" versions have 8 uncoated air-glass surfaces, are prone to flare, and not-well-suited to color work.

The OP mentioned that his bellows draw has a practical limit of 14" and that he wanted to do on-film 1:1 macro work. A 203mm/8 inch lens can 't quite get to 1:1 with 14 inches of bellows draw. A later Plasmat-style 150mm G-Claron can do so easily with 12" of bellows extension. A 180mm Fujinon A will just get to 1: on film with 14".

Now, if the OP were willing to crop and enlarge a bit, then a coated post-WWII 203 Ektar would do very nicely and inexpensively indeed. It covers 5x7 at infinity, although barely, and by design also works well at infinity.

[Mike in NY]

Now, if the OP were willing to crop and enlarge a bit, then a coated post-WWII 203 Ektar would do very nicely and inexpensively indeed.

That's going to be a bit difficult with a tintype, LOL. ;)

[Joseph Kashi]

That's going to be a bit difficult with a tintype, LOL. ;)

No question about not cropping and enlarging for a tintype. Missed that point earlier in the thread.

[Mike in NY]

No question about not cropping and enlarging for a tintype. Missed that point earlier in the thread.

Let's see, where did I put my tin snips... I know they're around here somewhere.

[Steve Goldstein]

Let's see, where did I put my tin snips... I know they're around here somewhere.

Look for your plate-stretchers while you're at it :)