Macro Lens for Sinar F

[StudioKroes]

Hello,

New here!

I shoot a lot of digital macro work and recently bought a Sinar F that came with a Schneider 210mm lens. I have been doing some macro work with flowers and have had to extend the bellows about 12 inches to get the type of magnification I desire.

I found some videos about the Nikkor AM ED 120mm Macro lens and then read that the coverage might not be enough for a 4x5 camera?

Are there any other recommended lenses that would allow me to get a 1:1 magnification without racking out the bellows a foot?

Attached a sample image I shot

Thanks!

[Oren Grad]

I found some videos about the Nikkor AM ED 120mm Macro lens and then read that the coverage might not be enough for a 4x5 camera?

The 120 Nikkor-AM has ample coverage for 4x5 at 1:1 magnification. That's what it's designed for.

[Jeff Keller]

Expanding a little on Oren's post: As you focus closer, your lens moves further away from your film. The cone of light coming from your lens towards the film has more time to expand, increasing the coverage. You may come across some posts where the photographer uses hyperfocal focusing to gain a little more coverage even when taking pictures of distant objects.

A macro lens that is designed to focus very close often has pretty minimal image circle specs at infinity because it isn't intended to be used at infinity.

[arri]

I used a Zeiss S-Planar 120mm f/5.6 in 4x5" It is good usable from 1:4
It is an excellent lens.
Now I`am using a Zeiss S-Planar 135mm f/5.6
It were a Hasselblad lens where I removed the lens cells and I mount´em into a shutter size I
For me it were a cheap lens because I made all machining works by my self.

A Nikon AM 120mm will be a good choice as well.

[Tin Can]

1 to 1 on 11X14 X-Ray Film

Shot on 11x14 camera

Normal lens 360mm

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50792636846_dd09df6f52_o.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/S3sKTzn7M5)Macro 11X14 X-Ray film contact print (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/S3sKTzn7M5) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[Tin Can]

Setup used

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50792636891_6d4560586f_o.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/1R8znxp146)Upside down 11X14 camera macro shot (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/1R8znxp146) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[xkaes]

Most importantly, for macro work, you should get a lens designed for high magnification. The Schneider 210mm isn't. And, as mentioned, shorter focal length MACRO lenses can cover LF film if given enough bellows extension -- but they don't need much extension because of their short focal lengths. You can easily get to 1X with a 70mm/75mm/80mm macro/process lens covering 4x5" film and 6" of extension. These lenses CAN BE very inexpensive.

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/macrolenses.htm

[StudioKroes]

Most importantly, for macro work, you should get a lens designed for high magnification. The Schneider 210mm isn't. And, as mentioned, shorter focal length MACRO lenses can cover LF film if given enough bellows extension -- but they don't need much extension because of their short focal lengths. You can easily get to 1X with a 70mm/75mm/80mm macro/process lens covering 4x5" film and 6" of extension. These lenses CAN BE very inexpensive.

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/macrolenses.htm

This makes sense to me, but was confused about the comments in regards to coverage at infinity. This would only be applicable when shooting something like landscape then? Why would someone use a Macro lens for something needing infinity focus?

[StudioKroes]

The 120 Nikkor-AM has ample coverage for 4x5 at 1:1 magnification. That's what it's designed for.

Thank you for the straight-forward answer!

[StudioKroes]

So the Nikkor AM ED 120mm lens as an example, will natively magnify at 1:1, hence the macro designation. Someone said "any lens on LF is a macro because of the capabilities of the bellows extension." In principal, this makes sense, and thusly never understood the need for a dedicated macro lens, besides the lenses being optimized to be sharper at closer magnifications?

[Oren Grad]

So the Nikkor AM ED 120mm lens as an example, will natively magnify at 1:1

What do you mean by "natively magnify"?

But this...


...thusly never understood the need for a dedicated macro lens, besides the lenses being optimized to be sharper at closer magnifications?

...is indeed precisely the point - what magnification or magnification range a lens is optimized for.

For example, from Rodenstock's product literature:

"The image quality of lenses designed for larger distances or even optimized for infinity drops visibly at close range for scales of around 1:1. Compared with the performance of a modern top lens at medium to long distances, there are noticeable shortcomings from around 1:3 onwards. This is precisely where the special Macro-Sironar-N comes into its own...."

On the other hand, some process lenses are designed to handle very different magnifications relatively gracefully:

"Though ideally corrected for 1:1 reproduction, the four-element Apo-Ronar maintains its image quality even at high reductions (distance range) or magnifications."

[Mark Sampson]

It's worth noting that as recently as the early 1990s, Schneider kept the Apo-Artar (a 'process' lens) in their catalogue and advertised it as "the best lens for photographing jewelry". If nothing else, that statement reminds us that these lenses were designed for a demanding professional clientele.
My own limited experience with LF macro work would suggest that Schneider's 150/9 G-Claron does very well, up close on 4x5.

[Oren Grad]

Schneider describes the G-Claron as "A symmetrical, six-element large format taking lens particularly corrected for 1:1 linear magnification. The lens can be used for angles of view up to 64 degrees within the scale of 1:5 to 5:1, and greater."

Many here have used G-Clarons as general-purpose lenses including for distant subjects at small magnifications.

[Mark J]

The Apo Ronar ( and Apo Artar ) fares better across Infinity to 1:1 because its field angle is lower. The trade-offs aren't as harsh in this case, as with 70 - 72° lenses.

I have looked at the performance of G-Clarons at infinity and while they do look pretty sharp when stopped-down, I'm not sure how easy they would be to focus at f/5.6 in dim light, the field performance there is quite poor.

[Tin Can]

I resisted buying a Nikkor AM ED 120mm lens

Waste of money

[ic-racer]

You can get just about any magnification with just about any LF lens. A macro lens can image a flat field better; do you need that with those flowers?

[xkaes]

Macro lenses have flat fields, but they also have better resolution, less aberration, at high magnifications.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I have three 150mm F9 Rodenstock Apo-Ronars, two of them were $30 each, no retaining rings. The third one came in perfect matched Compur shutter. All three of these are SUPERB for closeup 4x5 photography, on my Plaubel 4x5 reflex Makiflex, my 6.5x9cm Plaubel Peco Juniors (the one in shutter), and also on my 4x5 Sinar Norma cameras, where I utilize the Norma Automatic Shutters. I call these lenses "tiny gems" because they are just so perfect for macro, and were cheapo in price, which is an added bonus.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51350559106_b20c499ec3_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2meF3cm)More Norma TLR Matched Lens Pairs (https://flic.kr/p/2meF3cm) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

I have a matched pair of 150mm F9 Apo Ronars, they are in the upper left. This is a matched pair to go on my 4x5 and 5x7 Norma TLR cameras. Notice how tiny they are. The taking lens has the "Mickey Mouse" aperture control mechanism for fast shooting speed. It mates with the Norma Automatic Shutters.

Zeiss also made "Luminar" lenses for large format, another good option. I see them in different focal lengths mounted on tubus Linhof Technika boards. The tubus could be removed and mounted onto whatever board you have. I played with a Luminar once at Midwest Photo, it was $500 or so, but WOW it was sweet to look through.

[Mark J]

You can get just about any magnification with just about any LF lens. A macro lens can image a flat field better; do you need that with those flowers?

A standard lens might be fine on this subject, but the image errors at a non-designed mag are not just field curvature - you also get coma and astigmatism in the field. This will alter the sharpness at wider apertures and the bokeh rendition. Maybe it's not in a bad way, I don't know. However if I was shooting regularly at less than 1:5 , I think I'd get a G-Claron. I agree with Tin Can that the AM-Nikkor's or macro-Symmar HM type lenses are a bit overkill, probably best reserved for copying artwork or similar stringent jobs, at wider apertures.

[xkaes]

A standard lens might be fine on this subject....

I agree -- see Post #17. "Might" is the key word. On 4x5" film, that shot of the rose (above) is at least 1X and on larger formats it's even higher. But in photography, "fine" is difficult to de-fine.

[ic-racer]

The flower in the OP looks fine, so, indeed the 'standard' lens is perfectly fine in that setting.

Now, if the OP wanted to make a 4x5 internegative or interpositive of that print, then I think everyone would agree a macro or process or enlarging lens would give the better results than the [Symmar?] 210.

[StudioKroes]

I resisted buying a Nikkor AM ED 120mm lens

Waste of money

Why?

Is there a lens you would recommend over the Nikkor?

[StudioKroes]

A standard lens might be fine on this subject, but the image errors at a non-designed mag are not just field curvature - you also get coma and astigmatism in the field. This will alter the sharpness at wider apertures and the bokeh rendition. Maybe it's not in a bad way, I don't know. However if I was shooting regularly at less than 1:5 , I think I'd get a G-Claron. I agree with Tin Can that the AM-Nikkor's or macro-Symmar HM type lenses are a bit overkill, probably best reserved for copying artwork or similar stringent jobs, at wider apertures.

The issue I ran into was having to go out 12-16” in bellows to fill the frame, depending on the size of the flower.

I only shoot single stems with strobes, so it’s mostly a studio setting but occasionally, I’ll use natural light as well. I felt the bellows were too restrictive, hence my research into shorter focal lengths / macro specific lenses that will allow me to fill the frame of smaller flowers without the large bellows extension.

Any lens recommendations?

[SimonMaddock]

I'm not huge on macro, but I do have the Nikkor AM ED 120 and I have made non-scientific comparisons with my 150mm lenses. My personal take-aways are that the Nikkor is a little sharper one-two stops down than the Apo-Sironar-S 150. The Apo-Gerogon 150 have been the sharpest. Stopped down to get some DOF they are all pretty similar tbh.

The reason I still have the AM ED 120 is that the bokeh and general rendering is quite a bit nicer than any of the alternatives in my camera bag. If I want crisp and graphical I'd reach for the Apo-Gerogon, If I want to shoot a flower in a meadow I'd reach for the Nikkor.

I'd love to throw in a dialyt into the mix but I don't have one in a similar focal length.

[xkaes]

My Fujinon A 180mm f9 only gets me to 1X on my 4x5 camera (360mm of extension). If I want a greater magnification, I use a shorter focal length macro -- in my case a Minolta 100mm f4 Auto Bellows lens. It's made for 35mm but with 140mm of extension it covers 4x5" at about 0.5X -- and can go up to about 2.5X. At that point, I switch to a Minolta 50mm f3.5 Auto Bellows lens with about 140mm of extension. Wash and repeat.

It's easier to shorten the focal length than to add extension, but regardless of your choice -- more extension or shorter FL lens (or both) -- the lens should be designed for high magnification.

[John Layton]

For larger than 1:1 on 4x5, a reversed 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor P (old version) works great...as I used for this photo I made years and years ago before the last ice age...watch movement floating by surface tension on water which I'd sprinkled with aluminum powder:

249593

[Mark J]

The issue I ran into was having to go out 12-16” in bellows to fill the frame, depending on the size of the flower.


Some good comment above, but can you just remind me of your format, and an estimate of the mag you're getting - sounds like around 1:1 or is it bigger ( more mag ? )
Maybe I can think of something else.

[Mark J]

There's a 150mm G-Claron, it's slow, but should be good for 1:1 and almost up to 2x with your bellows.... not expensive.

[Dan Fromm]

There's a 150mm G-Claron, it's slow, but should be good for 1:1 and almost up to 2x with your bellows.... not expensive.

Cells are direct fits in #0 shutters.

[Greg]

I highly recommend the Nikon Macro-Nikkor Multiphot 12cm f/6.3 lens which was made for use on the Nikon Multiphot. Back in the 1980s and 1990s it was my go to lens for shooting 4x5 Chromes.

[StudioKroes]

I have just purchased a Rodenstock 120mm f/5.6 APO Macro Sironar Copal 0 BT from KEH today. I suppose I will give this one a shot.

[StudioKroes]

Some good comment above, but can you just remind me of your format, and an estimate of the mag you're getting - sounds like around 1:1 or is it bigger ( more mag ? )
Maybe I can think of something else.

Shooting 4x5 for the florals and trying to fill the negative with just a bit of white space around. Larger flowers of course don't need larger magnification like smaller specimens.

The attached was about 2:1

[Mark J]

Great - sounds like the macro Sironar will be perfect !

[Daniel Unkefer]

Shooting 4x5 for the florals and trying to fill the negative with just a bit of white space around. Larger flowers of course don't need larger magnification like smaller specimens. The attached was about 2:1


This reminds me of Irving Penn's work. Love the use of space, form, and color. Very Impactful.

[StudioKroes]

This reminds me of Irving Penn's work. Love the use of space, form, and color. Very Impactful.

That's a nice compliment, thank you.