Macro lens choice

[Daniel Geiger]

I am on the brink of getting a macro lens for my Arca F-line 4x5. I have used before a regular (non-macro) 150 lens for between 1:2 to 1:1 (half to full life size), but the images tend to be a bit soft, even when flashed and not excessively stopped down. Space between the lens and the object (flowers, mushrooms, ...) has been ok, but not generous, so I rather consider a 180 mm than a 120 mm. 210 is too long for bellows draw. That whittles it down to Schneider and Rodenstock. Although both are fully symmetrical designs optimized for 1:1, Schneider gives their magnification ratio as 1:3 to 3:1, whereas Rodenstock rather goes from 1:5 to 2:1. Makes no optical sense to me, but what do I know?

I tend towards the Rodenstock, more versatile in smaller than life size photography [close-up, if you like], has a bit more movements, is a bit lighter (400 vs 500 g) (also a tad cheaper). One thing I am a bit confused about is the f-stop range. In their table, they list "working f-stop" 5.6 - 22, though the photo shows a copal shutter going to at least f/45, possibly f/64. I understand the issue with effective f-stop (f/22 on shutter @ 1:1 = effective f/45 at image plane), and image degradation by diffraction. Is there more to it?

Anything else to consider? I shoot exclusively chromes. Re longitudinal chromatic error, for the Rodenstock macro 120 mm (no indications for the 180) it is 0.25 mm in the red, which seems reasonable. I could not find any indications for the Schneider.

[Michael S. Briggs]

The solution to your optical puzzle is that the Rodenstock lens isn't perfectly symmetrical. Rodenstock judged that the most common use of "macro" lenses is for tabletop work in which the subjects are of a size for which the image will be bit smaller than lifesize. Consequently they optimized the Apo-Macro-Sironar for the case that the object is slightly larger than image, hence the suggested range of 1:5 to 2:1 -- exactly as you say, for "smaller than life size photography".

Most other "macro" lenses, such as the Schneider Makro-Symmar, are perfectly symmetrical, and therefore optimum at 1:1.

[Michael S. Briggs]

The paper brochure for the Apo-Macro-Sironar has more information, such as the cross-section diagram that makes it clear that the lens isn't symmetrical, and the graphs for the 180 mm lens.

[neil poulsen]

What do you use as an enlarging lens, assuming you do darkroom work? If it's a 150mm Componon-S, it may fit in your 150mm shutter. I know it will fit, if you're using a 150mm Symmar-S lens.

[Bosaiya]

The Schneider 180mm is a superb lens, I use it all the time for 1:1 to 12:1 without complaint. There's roughly six inches of usable working distance between the lens and the subject and it is tack-sharp throughout. Movements are almost never a concern with macro work, in my experience, especially at larger magnifications.

I've gone the enlarger lens route in the past but just don't think the results are as good - but the price is usually right in comparison.

[Robert Oliver]

love the rodenstock 120mm. probably my most used lens in the bag.

[darr]

"love the rodenstock 120mm. probably my most used lens in the bag."

I second that. Here's a recent example using an Ebony 4x5" and Polaroid 55 P/N:

http://cameraartist.com/images/20060401194026_nautilus.jpg (http://cameraartist.com)

[Janko Belaj]

how about G-Claron 150? I have found my 210 perfect for such job so I think shorter version shouldn't be far away. and with 300mm (at 1:1) of distance beetween lens and object you will have more room for lightning than with 240mm (with 120mm lens at 1:1). Sure, 180mm lens would be better in case when you need space for lightning...

[Ted Harris]

Daniel, you might want to check this very recent thread: http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/505459.html

[Daniel Geiger]

Thanks everybody for the comments and notes.

Michael: thanks for helping with the lens design. Had a look at it again, and wonder why I did not notice it before. Hindsight 20-20.

I'm not enthralled with the idea of getting an enlarging lens fitted. If I'm willing to part with some $$ I go for something that is designed for the purpose I intend to use it.

Bosaiya: Thanks for the endorsement. up to 12 fold magnification (i.e., 1/2 inch object full frame on 4x5") or 1/12 (60 inch object on 4x5" film)? The latter seems more plausible. Otherwise, over 2 meters of bellows!

Robert & Darr: 120 mm seems a bit short for up to life size, particularly for out-door use with natural light. The Nautilus shell is about 8 inches long, so that photo is at about 1:1.5-1.8. May your choice also be affected by limited bellows draw on a field camera? I have the Arca long bellows and rail extensions, a telescopic rail, as well as the Bogen leg clamp for long lenses.

Ted: Thanks for the pointer. I did read though that as well as the macro pages on the LF forum home page before posting.

I think Rodenstock 180 it is. Bob Salomon can make a tick mark for that one ;-) Thanks again to everybody.

[darr]

"The Nautilus shell is about 8 inches long, so that photo is at about 1:1.5-1.8. May your choice also be affected by limited bellows draw on a field camera?"

Daniel: the Nautilus shell measures just a tad above 3.5" (8.9 cm). Camera was racked out at approximately 445mm bellows draw.

[Bosaiya]

"Bosaiya: Thanks for the endorsement. up to 12 fold magnification (i.e., 1/2 inch object full frame on 4x5") or 1/12 (60 inch object on 4x5" film)? The latter seems more plausible. Otherwise, over 2 meters of bellows! "

Hi Daniel, 12:1 (twelve times larger than life), my subjects are very small (http://www.knockoutproductions.com/angels/index.cfm?ref=lfp" target="_new)