Macro lens for 11x14. Will the 300mm Rodenstock cover?

[Torontoamateur]

I do love table top macro of object. I have the 11x14 Wisner and want to have a really top macro lens. I have the Nikkor 210mm Macro and use it on my 8x10 but will need a linger lens for the 11x14. It is a matter of space between camera and subject. I wonder of the 300MM Rodenstock Macro will cover when I get to 1:1 and even larger say to 3x size Anyone with some solid info on using this lens ?

[NHE]

I don’t know the specific coverage of that Rodenstock lens, but it should certainly cover at 1:1. The image circle at 1:1 is approximately double the size of the image circle at infinity. Most 300mm large format lenses will have coverage in excess of 600mm at 1:1 and you need 450mm to cover 11x14.

The issue you may run into is bellows draw you need 600mm for 1:1 and 1200mm for 1:3.

[Kiwi7475]

I can’t answer whether it covers, but if you really want a 3x magnification with such a large camera, I’d recommend a shorter focal length or using a diopter in front of the lens — that only serves to reduce the focal length but that translates to a smaller bellows draw and greater stability. Doesn’t need to be too strong, a +2 will help significantly and shouldn’t degrade the image quality. I actually use a 150mm heidosmat with my 11x14 and that covers at 3x with room to spare at small apertures.

[Bernice Loui]

Close up enough a 300mm lens will easily cover 11x14, depends on the image ratio or magnification ratio in this example. Think how a frame of 35mm film can be projected to 11x14 print with a 50mm lens can do this, but done in reverse where the effective print become 11x14 sheet film and the 35mm film frame becomes the subject to be imaged.

Light loss factors (inverse square law applies).


Bernice

[xkaes]

You'll have plenty of coverage for macro work, but as mentioned, a shorter lens will overcome any bellows limitations -- and still give coverage at higher magnifications.

Close-up lenses are an inexpensive option, but they shrink the coverage/IC -- just like a shorter lens (which is what they create).

You can cover 11x14" with any lens if the magnification is high enough. Think about what magnification range you want and then compute what focal length lens you need.

[John Layton]

My "later edition" 305 G-Claron actually gives great coverage of 11x14 at infinity - and is quite wonderful close up. But for 1:1...have you actually tried that 210mm?

[xkaes]

If you are shooting at magnifications of 1X and higher, there are lots of much shorter lenses that are designed for close-up work, like the Fujinon A 180 & 240mm. They have ICs of 252mm and 336mm, respectively, at infinity.

[Dan Fromm]

If you are shooting at magnifications of 1X and higher, there are lots of much shorter lenses that are designed for close-up work, like the Fujinon A 180 & 240mm. They have ICs of 252mm and 336mm, respectively, at infinity.

Twice the infinity coverage @ 1:1

[cp_photo]

I use the Konica Hexanon GRII 300mm lens for this purpose on my Svedovsky 11x14 with 1100mm bellows. The lens actually covers 11x14 at infinity wide open.

[Torontoamateur]

I am considering the Rodenstock Macro because it is corrected for this extreme close up. Has anyone actually used one? Is it that much better than a lens not designed for closeup work?

[John Layton]

If my assumption is correct that you will not be enlarging these negatives, then you would likely not see any notable differences in performance between a purpose-built macro lens and another non-macro, but reasonably good quality lens of the same focal length (likely a plasmat to allow good 1:1 coverage with a short enough FL to keep bellows extensions reasonable).

[xkaes]

I am considering the Rodenstock Macro because it is corrected for this extreme close up. Has anyone actually used one? Is it that much better than a lens not designed for closeup work?

I would not call 1:1 - 3:1 "extreme", but there are lots of lenses that are designed for that range -- and will provide similar results. You need to look at the image circle they create in that range. The ones with the smallest image circles -- that cover 11x44" -- will have shorter focal lengths, require lens bellows extension, and cost less. They might even have wider apertures.

[cuypers1807]

I have shot 11x14 macro with a 50mm enlarger lens but the exposure times were extreme. I routinely use an 150mm Schneider Super Symmar XL with great results.

[Kiwi7475]

Another consideration is the depth of field. If you’re limited to f64 by your lens, even in 8x10, a 150mm lens focused at 20cm (to get a x3 magnification) will have a depth of field of about 1.4 cm (standard convention of CoC without enlarging the print), and 7mm at f32. Same if using a 300mm lens focused at 40 cm.

[Bernice Loui]

What would be the "macro" subject for 11x14 film and what are the print image goals?

This will be the primary decider for lens and all related. Lens is one small aspect of the much greater whole. There is lighting, set up, camera-bellows draw needed to achieve the magnification/image ratios to meet the image goals. Regardless DOF/F will be an issue. If contact printing f90 is often more than ok, still f90 might not achieve the DOF/F needed to meet the image goals. By f90, all lenses become diffraction limited.. makes nil difference for a "macro" lens or enlarging lens or process lens or wide angle lens or... there is NO magical lens that can escape this way of Nature


Bernice

[Tin Can]

We do have a Macro thread or 3

I have posted before this set

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?71483-Large-Format-Macro-Images&p=1591830&viewfull=1#post1591830

[Torontoamateur]

If my assumption is correct that you will not be enlarging these negatives, then you would likely not see any notable differences in performance between a purpose-built macro lens and another non-macro, but reasonably good quality lens of the same focal length (likely a plasmat to allow good 1:1 coverage with a short enough FL to keep bellows extensions reasonable).

I am preparing for extreme enlargements. A local expert on drum Scanning is collaborating. I do expect to print large size. In my 8x10 work i generally scan and print 5 to 7 feet . The impact of a macro image made 6 to 8 feet tall is actually what I am planning to do. Sharpness is primary. My bellows has a draw of 45 inches.

[Torontoamateur]

I see no one has had actual experience with the 300mm Macro . The general comments I had already considered before embarking on the quest. I have tried my macro lenses ( among them the Nikkor 210 ED) for 8x10 and my short 150mm Grandagon and 120 SW Nikkor. They do cover but are not fully corrected for close up work as I contemplate.The limits of depth of field and use of the tilts and shifts on the Wisner Technical Field allow for some control. I guess the only way is to actually use the lens and find out. Thank you for your well thought out comments and interest.You are very helpful and I know other photographers will find this thread of interest .

[John Layton]

Good for you for going big! Would love to know how this works out.

In the meantime...a very teachable moment here for everyone - that in the spirit of efficiency and respect, when we pose questions such as these it would be really nice to give some idea, to the extent that we might envision this...of our goals for an actual end result. Just sayin' :)

[xkaes]

My experience with large format macro lenses is limited to the Fujinon 180mm NA f9.0. It's the same situation, just on a smaller scale -- not necessarily a lower magnification.

There are some other large format macro lenses usable for larger formats. Here are the Fujinon options with their image circles at infinity in brackets:

Fujinon A 240mm f9.0 (336mm)
Fujinon NA 240mm f9.0 (336mm)

Fujinon NA 300mm f9.0 (420mm)

Fujinon A 360mm f10.0 (500mm)
Fujinon A S 360mm f10.0 (500mm)
Fujinon NA 360mm f10.0 (504mm)

Fujinon A 600mm f11.0 (840mm)
Fujinon A S 600mm f11.0 (840mm)

Fujinon A 1200mm f24.0 (1120mm)
Fujinon A S 1200mm f24.0 (1120mm)


Given your bellows limits, the 1200mm won't give you any macro, and the 600mm only to 1:1, but the others are all good options.

And even the Fujinon A & NA 180mm f9.0 would be good for higher magnifications.

[Bob Salomon]

Good for you for going big! Would love to know how this works out.

In the meantime...a very teachable moment here for everyone - that in the spirit of efficiency and respect, when we pose questions such as these it would be really nice to give some idea, to the extent that we might envision this...of our goals for an actual end result. Just sayin' :)

One of our dealers equipped a super studio in his area with several LInhof 810 camera systems and factory matched Apo Ronar lenses for doing color catalog photography of mostly jewelry. The studio would set up several pages on a shooting table so the art directors could get multiplayer pages in one shot.
Problem was that while the center items were very sharp the ones further from the center were not as sharp. These were all shot in the 3:1 to 1:3 range.
They then switched to the 210 and 300mm Makro Sironars and all of the objects were then equally sharp.

[John Layton]

To the OP…with sincere apologies if I’m preaching to the choir:

Knowing that you would be truly exploring the limits of what is possible, you will need to absolutely verify the position of your actual film plane, and possibly make some adjustments to this - based on the environmental conditions present at the time of film capture, and the actual positioning of the film plane relative to the earth’s gravity…to further ensure that this verified and exact plane will be both useable and repeatable.

Thing is, if you truly want to squeeze every ounce of optical quality out of that lens, you will also need to establish what would be the “ideal” aperture value for that lens (you did mention that "sharpness is primary"), and while this might typically offer at least one f-stop’s worth of deviation from this value for most of us (which we appreciate to help ensure good focus)…your own requirements will likely mean that you’ll need to view this “ideal” value as absolute, lest the effects of diffraction (which can basically level the playing field of otherwise “decent to excellent” lenses), work against you.

I have had some experience here, both as a camera designer and as one who pulls 40x60 wet prints on a regular basis and who is mildly addicted (depending upon subject) to achieving results that are somewhat “crispy.”

Not suggesting impossibility here…but you will want to test your setup thoroughly - and at the very least you might want to consider (at least for a “down angled” camera position) the careful use of some double sided tape from the outset, thinking of how a film’s deviation from a true plane tends to be uneven.

[Oren Grad]

For the record, the coverage spec for the 300mm Macro-Sironar-N is 550mm at f/22 and 1:1. So enough for 11x14 with movements.

[John Layton]

I would think that if the OP were able to use this lens and get everything properly dialed in (and assuming great scanning)...the results could be spectacular!

[Torontoamateur]

For the record, the coverage spec for the 300mm Macro-Sironar-N is 550mm at f/22 and 1:1. So enough for 11x14 with movements.

Thank You very much for this information.

[xkaes]

At 1:1, even the "short" Fujinon A 180mm will have a 500mm image circle.

[Kiwi7475]

At such magnifications a LOT of lenses cover. Here's an example of a 11x14 at ~3.5x magnification taken with a Heidosmat 150mm @ F64 on Fuji HR-U 11x14 x-ray film rated at 80. I believe the exposure was ~3 min minutes due to reciprocity. Developed with Rodinal 1:100 for about 9.5 min at ~17C.

224541

[xkaes]

That's one hunk o' glass!

[Torontoamateur]

I can cover with my Grandagon 150mm and my Schneider 210 XL but the 300mm Macro has the best correction for close up. When I am shooting with 11x14 Ektachrome 100 in Canada and the cost of each exposure is $90 CDN I want the best sharpness I can get. I will test of course because the final image is very expensive. Then add to that the cost of a scan to print 150PPI to 7 or 8 feet and then the actual printing. This takes the beginning to end production of the final image to over $1,000 CND The set up and all steps have to be ultra precise. Just assembling the team of professionals along this path is incredible and I am looking forward to many months spent in production. I will be testing with Adox B&W asa 100 until it is perfect. then switching to Ektachrome.

The 300mm Macro is on its way to me now. I spent three years finding one. These are rare indeed.

All of your advice and comments helped me to focus on the critical issues in this endeavour.

[xkaes]

I can cover with my Grandagon 150mm and my Schneider 210 XL but the 300mm Macro has the best correction for close up.

That's not surprising since the first two are not designed for close-up work.

Good luck with your endeavor, but I still think a shorter focal length macro lens would have done just as well -- and been much softer on the wallet!

I hope you let us know how it goes.

[Alec]

I have a 300mm Macro Sironar and it is a great lens.
Yes, it will cover at more than 1:1 for a 11x14 camera.

Hope it will helps.

[Torontoamateur]

I have a 300mm Macro Sironar and it is a great lens.
Yes, it will cover at more than 1:1 for a 11x14 camera.

Hope it will helps.

Yes Mine just arrived yesterday I will now do some pictures. This is very exciting !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mark Sampson]

When you have pictures you like, please share them here. Best of luck- it seems like a challenging (and rewarding) endeavor!