Lens for shooting botanicals 4x5, 5x7

[Ken Lee]

I no longer have my Fujinon 180A, but would like to get something similar, for doing close images of flowers.

I don't intend to get closer than 1:1, and I presume that I don't need a flat-field "copy" lens.

Given that 150 is shorter than 180, and will thus require less bellows draw, would a 150mm G-Claron be an affordable choice ? Will it cover 5x7 at close distances ?

What other lens would be affordable/available ?

[Kevin Crisp]

Ken: The 150 g claron will cover 5X7 at infinity with room to spare, so you would have no problem with coverage. Having never photographed botanicals, I can't say if that is a good choice for you as a focal length, but obviously the lens excels at close ups.

[Ole Tjugen]

The G-Claron is fine for sharpness and coverage, but... at 1:1 the f:9 is an effective f:18, and that's pretty dark!

My recommendation would be an elderly Schneider Symmar 135mm f:5.6! Not a 150mm, for reasons which will become obvious:

The Symmar is very close to symmetrical, and gives decent sharpness all the way down to 1:1. The original design is rumored to have been optimised for 1:5, with a recommendation that the lens should be reversed when used at larger magnifications than 1:1. The reason to prefer a 135mm to a 150mm is simple: The #0 shutter has the same threads for front and rear cells. Simply unscrew both cells, and swap. The 150mm is in a #1 shutter, which has different threads. That b*ggers up the mounting...

I know you said you "don't intend to get closer than 1:1", but it is often nice to have the possibility - especially with small flowers.

I use a 240mm Symmar myself, for the same reasons. I have enough bellows for it. If I need to get really close, I use a reversed 90mm or 165mm Angulon - they're both in symmetrical shutters. :)

[C. D. Keth]

good call! I'll have to remember that myself, Ole.

[Matus Kalisky]

I am just curious - but why would not you use the Fujinon A 240 you like so much ?

I mention this as the 135 has rather wide filed of view. I tryed somwthing similar and compared 210 and 125 and 210 was easier to get the background I wanted - but you know much more about this anyhow.

M..

[naturephoto1]

Hi Matus,

Though the Fuji 240mm A lens will have more working distance from the subject, the camera may have insufficient bellows draw for the needed magnification. Additionally there will probably be a bit more compression from the 240mm lens than a shorter lens. With the shorter lenses you can get the lens closer to the subject, require less bellows draw, and allow for more magnification.

Rich

[Jean-Marie Solichon]

Ken: The 150 g claron will cover 5X7 at infinity with room to spare...
Published coverage for the 150 G Claron is 189mm, even though that might be conservative it is'nt enough for movement with 5x7. But for 4x5 it is OK. I have been using one for several years as a light normal lens for backpacking and for closeups. At 1:2 to 1:1 I found it to be marginally better than my 180 Apo Symmar.

[David A. Goldfarb]

For botanicals, I'd say you don't want a lens with massive coverage, because that will produce more bellows flare, and it's nice to have a lens with a wide aperture for focusing. 180mm lenses are usually good deals, because they are normal for 5x7"--a less popular format--but not so popular for 4x5", since most people would have a 135 and or 150 and maybe a 210 before thinking about a 180. Any of the modern plasmat types should be good. I have a Caltar II-N (Sironar-N), but the comparable Symmars should be fine too. Coverage will be plenty at these magnifications.

[Ken Lee]

I am just curious - but why would not you use the Fujinon A 240 you like so much ?

I mention this as the 135 has rather wide filed of view. I tryed something similar and compared 210 and 125 and 210 was easier to get the background I wanted - but you know much more about this anyhow.

M..
I use the 240 now, and it's great, on 4x5, 5x7, (even 8x10 when I had one). My Wisner has enough bellows draw for me to go to 1:1 on 4x5, and my old Kodak No 2 has enough for the same on 5x7.

I am looking for greater depth of field, or at least the ability to have it when the image calls for it.

I have a 150 Sironar S already, but I presume it won't serve me well at really close distance. When I compared the 150 Sironar to my (now sold) Fujinon A at close distances, the Fujinon was distinctly sharper.

[Dan Fromm]

Ken, DoF is controlled by aperture set and magnification. That's it, you can't gain DoF by reducing focal length. Ain't no magic bullets, sorry.

Also, coverage grows as magnification increases. Image circle, usually given for the lens focused at infinity, is the intersection of the cone of rays the lens projects with the film plane. If you move the film plane away from the cone of ray's vertex, the circle will grow. At 1:1, with the lens twice as far from the film plane as when focused at infinity, the image circle's diameter is twice as large as with the lens focused at infinity.

[Ken Lee]

Ken, DoF is controlled by aperture set and magnification. That's it, you can't gain DoF by reducing focal length. Ain't no magic bullets, sorry.

This is a subject of frequent discussion, and I am no expert.

That being said, one of the reasons I left 8x10 was the decrease in depth of field, when using longer lenses at the same f/stop and shutter speed combinations that I use with 4x5.

As I recall, Professor Evens explained that as focal length doubles, one needs to close down 2 stops to get the same depth of field.

[Oren Grad]

This is a subject of frequent discussion, and I am no expert.

That being said, one of the reasons I left 8x10 was the decrease in depth of field, when using longer lenses at the same f/stop and shutter speed combinations that I use with 4x5.

As I recall, Professor Evens explained that as focal length doubles, one needs to close down 2 stops to get the same depth of field.

Ken, when you're capturing a given subject field on an 8x10 negative, you are in fact increasing the magnification substantially compared to doing the same on 4x5. Thus Dan's point.

[Ken Lee]

Ken, when you're capturing a given subject field on an 8x10 negative, you are in fact increasing the magnification substantially compared to doing the same on 4x5. Thus Dan's point.

Thanks - That makes perfect sense.

[Oren Grad]

Actually, Ken, I'm sorry - scratch that. Just go back to Jeff Conrad's article (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/articles/DoFinDepth.pdf) and study it carefully if you really want to sort it out. Intuitive rules of thumb can lead you seriously astray, especially when you get close; the implicit assumptions usually are violated.

[Bruce Watson]

I have a 150 Sironar S already, but I presume it won't serve me well at really close distance. When I compared the 150 Sironar to my (now sold) Fujinon A at close distances, the Fujinon was distinctly sharper.

I've used both a 150mm Sironar-S and a 240mm Fujinon-A for this duty. I don't image I've ever been as close as 1:1. Outside of that both lenses seem to be pretty sharp. Here an example (http://www.achromaticarts.com/big_image.php?path=flowers&img_num=2) done with the 150mm lens. It's plenty sharp on the light table with a 10x loupe. It makes a really sharp print, but I've never printed it bigger than about 14x11 inches.

What you might want to consider is backing off a bit and cropping. Why? Well, you probably aren't going to make a huge print of a closeup. This means that you can sacrifice some film area without any ill effects. And if you do that, the 150mm you already own should do fine. Else, I hear that a 180mm Fujinon-A iis just the ticket -- oh, wait. I heard that from you ;-)

[Ken Lee]

Actually, Ken, I'm sorry - scratch that. Just go back to Jeff Conrad's article (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/articles/DoFinDepth.pdf) and study it carefully if you really want to sort it out. Intuitive rules of thumb can lead you seriously astray, especially when you get close; the implicit assumptions usually are violated.

I didn't want to split hairs, but it seems that the magnification that we get, with the larger format cameras, is due to our upsizing the lenses accordingly.

I like to recall that the depth of field of a 300mm lens at f/32 is the same as a 150mm lens at f/16, which is the same as a 75mm lens at f/8, or a 37mm lens at f/4, etc.

[David A. Goldfarb]

DOF is usually calculated with respect to the print, not the neg/transparency, and accounts for format size, because the value for acceptible circle of confusion is different for each format, and that value is part of the calculation. When you discuss, say, the DOF of a 300mm lens at f:32, you have to specify the format. The principle that a 300mm lens at f:32 has the same DOF as a 150mm lens at f:16, etc., for a given subject distance, is only true if the format is the same.

In the macro range (magnifications greater than about 1:10), generally, the focal length has a minimal effect on DOF. The DOF of a 100mm lens at 1:5 or so will be about the same as the DOF of a 500mm lens at the same magnification on the same format with the same aperture, out to several significant figures, but the 500mm lens will give you more working distance.

[Renee Galang]

Hello Ken,
Please have a look at the photo section of my website www.rafflesialobata.org the photo there is the species of Rafflesia that I discovered in the jungle of Panay island Philippines. This is the first ever photos of species and one of them is in the front page of Folia Malyasiana which is where I decided to submit the description for publication. I have used a 4x5 zone iv and macro sironar 210 lens at nearly life size to half life size. These flowers are approximately 20 cm in diameter. I'll say that it is the luckiest species because it was photographed with a 4x5 with a macro lens when it was first discovered!

[Ken Lee]

DOF is usually calculated with respect to the print, not the neg/transparency, and accounts for format size, because the value for acceptible circle of confusion is different for each format, and that value is part of the calculation. When you discuss, say, the DOF of a 300mm lens at f:32, you have to specify the format. The principle that a 300mm lens at f:32 has the same DOF as a 150mm lens at f:16, etc., for a given subject distance, is only true if the format is the same.

In the macro range (magnifications greater than about 1:10), generally, the focal length has a minimal effect on DOF. The DOF of a 100mm lens at 1:5 or so will be about the same as the DOF of a 500mm lens at the same magnification on the same format with the same aperture, out to several significant figures, but the 500mm lens will give you more working distance.

OK. I need to read the article - tonight. I will learn, and will be much the better for it. :)

[Ken Lee]

Hello Ken,
Please have a look at the photo section of my website www.rafflesialobata.org the photo there is the species of Rafflesia that I discovered in the jungle of Panay island Philippines. This is the first ever photos of species and one of them is in the front page of Folia Malyasiana which is where I decided to submit the description for publication. I have used a 4x5 zone iv and macro sironar 210 lens at nearly life size to half life size. These flowers are approximately 20 cm in diameter. I'll say that it is the luckiest species because it was photographed with a 4x5 with a macro lens when it was first discovered!

I had a look at your site, the photos of the species you discovered. That is quite a remarkable species of plant !

I also watched the video of your explanation, and I hope that the mountainous region that you're working to preserve, is as lucky as that Rafflesia !

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi Ken,

"In the macro range (magnifications greater than about 1:10), generally, the focal length has a minimal effect on DOF. The DOF of a 100mm lens at 1:5 or so will be about the same as the DOF of a 500mm lens at the same magnification on the same format with the same aperture, out to several significant figures, but the 500mm lens will give you more working distance."

Because of the view point the 500 will 'see' farther around the object than the 100, at the expense of bellows extension, vibration, wind, ect...

Back to the original question, Heliar and Dagors are both very fine at close focus distance but I have no idea of your taste and style.

Have fun with it.

[Ken Lee]

Christopher Perez pointed out to me that since my 150 Sironar sits in a Number 0 shutter, I can reverse the cells - as Ole suggested regarding the Symmar.

I gave it a try, and discovered that performance at close distance was visibly improved, when the ground glass was inspected with a loupe.

Depth of field aside, it looks as though this presents a *very* affordable alternative.

[Dan Fromm]

Um, Ken, if you're shooting below 1:1 -- that's what you said you were going to do when you started this discussion -- there's no reason to reverse the lens. None at all, regardless of what Chris said. Lenses intended for normal use are optimized for large subject in front, small negative behind. Above 1:1, the situation is small subject in front, large negative behind, and then reversing the lens will preserve the optimization.

If you think you can predict image quality on film by examing the image on the GG with the lens wide open, I have a small little bridge of nothing at all that you should buy. It links two tiny little-known villages in New York, Brooklyn and Manhattan.

You might do well to buy and read Lester Lefkowitz' book The Manual of Closeup Photography before making any other expenditure on "shooting botanicals."

Cheers,

Dan

[Ken Lee]

Um, Ken, if you're shooting below 1:1 -- that's what you said you were going to do when you started this discussion -- there's no reason to reverse the lens. None at all, regardless of what Chris said. Lenses intended for normal use are optimized for large subject in front, small negative behind. Above 1:1, the situation is small subject in front, large negative behind, and then reversing the lens will preserve the optimization.

If you think you can predict image quality on film by examing the image on the GG with the lens wide open, I have a small little bridge of nothing at all that you should buy. It links two tiny little-known villages in New York, Brooklyn and Manhattan.

You might do well to buy and read Lester Lefkowitz' book The Manual of Closeup Photography before making any other expenditure on "shooting botanicals."

Sorry if I have been inconsistent in my statements, or a bit vague. :o

At first I thought I wouldn't get as close as 1:1, but then I remembered that some of my images are at that size or closer, such as this one:

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/gallery/daisy.jpg

To predict image quality I pointed the lens at a magazine with images of holiday items for sale, at around 1:1, and looked at the groundglass with my 8x loupe. With the lens in reversed configuration, and stopped down a few stops, I could clearly see the dots which comprise the magazine images - but with the lens in normal arrangement, I could not.

This matches your excellent advice about when to reverse the cells. Thanks ! And thanks for the reference to the book. I will have a look-see.

[naturephoto1]

Hi Ken,

Nice image. I would guess that this is much more than 1:1 unless I am mistaken.

Rich

[Ken Lee]

Hi Ken,

Nice image. I would guess that this is much more than 1:1 unless I am mistaken.

Rich

You are right. This one is more than 1:1.

Others are a bit wider. This was made with a 240mm Fujinon A on 5x7:


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/gallery/p57.jpg

[Ron Marshall]

Christopher Perez pointed out to me that since my 150 Sironar sits in a Number 0 shutter, I can reverse the cells - as Ole suggested regarding the Symmar.

I gave it a try, and discovered that performance at close distance was visibly improved, when the ground glass was inspected with a loupe.

Depth of field aside, it looks as though this presents a *very* affordable alternative.

Ken, can both the Sironar 150 S and N be reversed?

[Rider]

I imagine that a 120 macro lens would be a good choice: plenty of coverage at 1:1 for 5x7, and will let you get closer to the plant to avoide the compressed look. Also, the Nikon version of the lens is a bargain.

[Marko]

Not to hijack the discussion, but I really like your botanicals, Ken. Especially the monochromes.

Just curious, though: certain number of your flowers have water drops on them. Is that real rain or did you "refresh" them for the shot?

[Ken Lee]

Ken, can both the Sironar 150 S and N be reversed?

Of course, any lens can be reversed - our problem is tripping the shutter when it's inside the camera. For a barrel lens, this is not an issue.

The Copal 0 shutter (and the lenses which fit it) have threads the same size, both front and rear. So any lens that takes a Copal 0 shutter will do accommodate this procedure.

Others more knowledgeable should pipe in here, but I suspect that the lens design plays a role: to the degree that the lens is of a symmetrical design, such as Plasmat, results will probably be more favorable.

[naturephoto1]

Hi Ron,

I would presume so since as I recall the threads for the lens cells are the same size on the front and the rear of a 0 shutter. As to the quality of performance on film that is another question and would require some testing. But, I would also guess if I had to that something like my Schneider 120mm f5.6 Makro Symmmar HM or equivalent would outperform these options on film in the near focus range (that is what they are designed to do as Bob Salomon has suggested).

According to the Schneider spec sheet that I have on my 120mm Makro Symmar HM, the lens will not have enough coverage for 5 X 7 until about 1:1 with shift capabilities (30mm and 24mm for vertical and horizontal respectively).

Rich

[Ken Lee]

Not to hijack the discussion, but I really like your botanicals, Ken. Especially the monochromes.

Just curious, though: certain number of your flowers have water drops on them. Is that real rain or did you "refresh" them for the shot?

In my shots, the rain drops are natural, as is the lighting.

I once tried to spray a Peony plant, but it didn't look natural.

I don't own any lights. Just a black cloth.

[Ron Marshall]

Of course, any lens can be reversed - our problem is tripping the shutter when it's inside the camera. For a barrel lens, this is not an issue.

The Copal 0 shutter (and the lenses which fit it) have threads the same size, both front and rear. So any lens that takes a Copal 0 shutter will do accommodate this procedure.

Others more knowledgeable should pipe in here, but I suspect that the lens design plays a role: to the degree that the lens is of a symmetrical design, such as Plasmat, results will probably be more favorable.

So all Copal O cells are interchangable. Great, that is what I was hoping. Thanks Ken and Rich. There are a couple of macro projects I have in mind.

[Marko]

I just noticed this one:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=40&A=details&Q=&sku=36876&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Don't jump at me if it's an old story, but the price seems attractive enough for a new macro lens.

55 degrees, 210mm @ f/5.6, 250mm @ f/22, both at 1:1, so it seems it won't cover even 4x5 at longer distances, but it may still be worth a look.

[Dan Fromm]

Sheeeit! That's cheap!

[naturephoto1]

I just noticed this one:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=40&A=details&Q=&sku=36876&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Don't jump at me if it's an old story, but the price seems attractive enough for a new macro lens.

55 degrees, 210mm @ f/5.6, 250mm @ f/22, both at 1:1, so it seems it won't cover even 4x5 at longer distances, but it may still be worth a look.

My God, I can't believe that price. If it is for real and not an error, the USA warrantied lens is the same price as the imported. If I didn't have the Schneider already, I would buy it if the price is correct!!!!! :eek: :confused:

[Ken Lee]

That is affordable. I'm sure it's razor sharp.

But first I need to take the Sironar-S for a test drive in its reverse configuration, and find out for myself about depth of field at close distances.

[Ron Marshall]

Amazing, what a price, and its new.

Ken, please let us know your results with the cells reversed.

[Ernest Purdum]

Yes, lens design plays a role. Lenses are either truly symmetrical, in which reversing does nothing, near-symmetrical in which reversing will improve matters when past 1:1 (unless the lens is designed for work beyond 1:1 to begin with), or asymmetrical. Asymmetrical lenses (Tessars, for example) really need to be reversed to perform at all well, and then probably only at a rather narrow range of magnifications.

It can be quite difficult to tell if a lens is truly symmetrical or only near-symmetrical unless the maker tells you, like Schneider did when changing from the truly symmetrical Symmar design to the near-symmetrical Symmar-S. In case of doubt, you might as well try it both ways. Can't hurt.

[Ernest Purdum]

Going by their published lens diagrams, the Apo-Sironar-S, like most other later Rodenstock lenses, is a near-symmetrical.

[Ole Tjugen]

It can be quite difficult to tell if a lens is truly symmetrical or only near-symmetrical unless the maker tells you, like Schneider did when changing from the truly symmetrical Symmar design to the near-symmetrical Symmar-S. ...

Even the first Dagor-type Symmars weren't completely symmetrical; the front and rear cells have always had different focal lengths.

[Ken Lee]

Finally got around to developing some 4x5 shots made with the 150-mm Sironar-S in reverse configuration. Looks good enough for me.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/gallery/amaryllis1.jpg

[Ted Harris]

Ken, looks good enough for me too. Further, in spite of my comments that optics differ in another current thread, my hat is off to you and your great eye for botanical images. Well done!

[Ron Marshall]

Looks good to me too, thanks for the post Ken.

[naturephoto1]

Hi Ken,

The image looks good. How sharp is the negative?

Rich

[Eric James]

What a great thread this is! Great technical expertise from forum regulars; my introduction to R. lobata, and Ken's discovery that he had an adequate solution in his existing quiver of lenses. I too will try flopping my 150mm Sironar S's cells when shooting macros.

[Christopher Perez]

:) :) :)

Ah. Very good, Grasshopper. You seem to have Used the Force. Well done.


Finally got around to developing some 4x5 shots made with the 150-mm Sironar-S in reverse configuration. Looks good enough for me.