Lens for Extreme Close Up?

[John Chervinsky]

Hi Folks,

I am interested in doing some extreme close-up work with a 4x5. I am interested particularly, working in a magnification range 5-10x, photographing water droplets. I have tried using an enlarger lens that I had lying around, an EL-NIKKOR 1:5.6 F=80 MM, with marginal results. I hope to have the front and rear surface of the droplet in focus and be able to make reasonable size quality enlargements. I realize that I am pushing the limits of what is achievable, but assuming that I have the bellows extension and enough light to make the exposure, what lens (or lens combination) is best suited for this?

Thanks very much for your thoughtful replies,

-John Chervinsky
www.chervinsky.org

[SAShruby]

IMHO, almost any. Image circle is not a problem. You can use lens even the don't cover 4x5. But shorter ones saves you bellows extension. I'm not sure if droplets would be lying on some surface or not, but you would need plenty of light to capture the size of the droplet. Water evaporates quickly, so you need to make sure that exposure won't be longer than few seconds in that magnification, because you will get fuzynnes from shringing sizr of the droplet.

That means lots of luxes and with this comes lots of heat and faster evaporation. maybe you need to cover with some heat glass. You definitely need to do some testing.

Definitely fast film such as FP5 or TMY.

[Jim Jones]

Normal or wide angle lenses from 35mm cameras, perhaps macro lenses for their small minimum aperture, reverse mounted on a 4x5 might work for you. You may lose definition from diffraction at the smallest apertures. Lennart Nilsson used a similar technique for a few of his spectacular macro- and microphotos.

[Darryl Baird]

I found a JML lens [f/1.9] in a copal shutter off of a Techtronix oscilloscope camera. It focuses very close, I don't know about 5x10 mag, but it might. I see these lenses for sale on fleabay often.

On the other hand, I use a Micro-Nikkor for some 2-3X magnification work with a bellows. I know this would be a very sharp lens, but without a shutter I think you'd have to improvise a way to control the exposure.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

John,

short lenses for a rangefinder (Leica) may work better for this, they don't need to retro-focus to clear a mirror. Reverse mounted on a 4x5 they should cover well. Bellows extention, small f/stop, inverse square rule = long exposure, no shutter should not be a problem.

Good luck with it.

[Glenn Thoreson]

Some of the short focal length lenses for the Polaroid MP-4 copy camera should do the trick nicely. I have a pretty good set of these, in sizes down to 35mm. They have the apeture in the lens barrel and will screw directly into a Copal 1 shutter. Since the apertture is in the barrel, any shutter will do.

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

Best there is are the Luminar series (16/25/40/63mm in RMS thread, 100mm in M35). Linhof used them many years for their systems.

You won't find better for high magnifications and they cover full format up to 1000mm bellows extention.

All are documented on my site www.macrolenses.de

Ask if you should have further questions.

Cheers, Klaus

[Dan Fromm]

John, did you reverse the enlarger lens?

Otherwise, I second Klaus' recommendation with one reservation. Macro Nikkors, Nikon's answer to Zeiss' Luminars, are also very good.

[Struan Gray]

How big are your droplets?

If they are any larger than a fine condensed mist, I suspect you will end up uncomfortably sandwiched between the Scylla of diffraction and the Charibdis of depth of field. Whatever you do, you get a blurred image.

I know that when we try accurately to measure the shape of millimeter-sized water droplets (we're trying to measure the contact angle), we take a stack of images and digitally combine them. Trying to do it with a single micrograph doesn't work well enough.

[David Millard]

I hope to have the front and rear surface of the droplet in focus and be able to make reasonable size quality enlargements. I realize that I am pushing the limits of what is achievable
-John Chervinsky
www.chervinsky.org

John -
I own and use a set of Luminars (and a 19mm MacroNikkor), and agree with the previous comments about their superb optical quality. For very good performance, and far less money, I would recommend initially getting a used movie lens, for 8mm or 16mm format, and and using it reversed on a lensboard. These are always available on eBay and other online auction sites.

However, it will be very challenging to accomplish what you want. If you assume a spherical water drop size of 2mm diameter, at 10X this would be only 20mm wide (less than an inch) on your film. The depth of field at f/8 on 4x5 film would be approximately only .16mm, and your effective aperture would be a huge f/88, introducing both resolution and lighting issues. Even if your droplet is resting on a surface, and is a flattened hemisphere, the height far exceeds the depth of field. You may wish to consider using a smaller format, where less magnification is required, or making scans of several images at different image depths, and compositing them with a program like Helicon Focus or CombineZM.

Good luck with your project!

[John Chervinsky]

Good replies and suggestions, all!

I did not think about trying small format or movie camera lenses and can't wait to get back up to my studio to experiment. In fact, now I'm thinking about trying my very sharp 75mm Nikkor that belongs on a Bronica S2A - I have a reversing ring that should allow me to get it onto a lens board.

Thanks also for the database work, Klaus, perhaps I can find a set of the Luminars at the university that I work.

The depth of field will most certainly be an issue, and now I'm having doubts as to whether I can get this to work outside of the digital realm. I'll just have to try it and see whether I can make something of it aesthetically. Hey, if I come up with something interesting, I'll post an image!

Thanks again for your help.

-John

[Jim Galli]

I have 75mm Tominon elements laying around here somewhere. They fit a copal 1.

[Kirk Keyes]

www.chervinsky.org

If you have not visited John's web site, I suggest you check out his gallery. There is some really interesting work there.

Great shots, John!

[sog1927]

I have two Luminars (40mm and 25mm) and a Leitz Photar (80mm) that I have used extensively (and quite successfully) with medium format. They all deserve their reputations - they're absolutely superb lenses for their intended purpose. I also have a 135mm Tominon (it came with the shutter I bought to use with the Luminars and Photar) which I've been playing with to get used to doing macro with a 4x5. It's pretty good, too (but that focal length is too long for what you're trying to do). I'm waiting for an adapter from S.K. Grimes to try the Luminars and Photar on 4x5. I've heard that the Macro-Nikkors are excellent, but I've never used one.

For the magnification range you're looking at, I'd say the 40mm and 25mm Luminars (or their equivalent from someone else) would be about right.

Reversed, high quality enlarging lenses would also give you excellent results. You're right in their optimal magnification range, and some of them perform incredibly well. Bob Salomon could doubtless give you recommendations from the Rodenstock line.

How big are the droplets? Depth of field will be a real issue - and if you solve that by stopping down, you'll incur problems with diffraction. How big a "high-quality enlargement" do you want to make?

Steve

[sog1927]

Did you try reversing the El-Nikkor? That would put you in its optimal magnification range. I would expect good results from doing this.

Steve

[John Chervinsky]

Steve,

Yes, I did try reversing the Nikkor enlarging lens but I ran out of bellows extension. The droplets are small, probably 3mm in diameter. Intuition tells me that the lens is not so great but I need to repeat with the proper geometry. I may be butting up against film resolution issues, too. My plan is to get a long postal shipping tube for mailing prints and duct tape something together with a variety of lenses and a polaroid back with type 55 film. I'll report back once I learn more.

Best,

-John

[Dan Fromm]

John, you need a shorter lens. Adding extension the way you want to adds unsteadiness and will make focusing and composing impossible, instead of merely difficult.

Thinking of cine lenses, the 25/1.9 Cine Ektar II, reversed and shot at f/2.8, marches, possibly beats, the 25/3.5 Luminar shot at f/3.5. I still use the Luminar, mainly because the CE II is a little harder to use.

[rob]

Componon 28mm appears very frequently on ebay. I believe when it is reverse mounted, it has the same optics as the M-componon 28mm. With most view camera and reversed 28mm componon, it should be doable to get ~15x, or more with long bellows and rail.

[Richard Raymond]

Keep it simple. For 5 to 6 times magnification reverse mount a 35mm lens wide open on the front of a 180mm lens. It doesn't really matter what brand of 35mm lens you use. Something from an old 35mm camera will work fine. Use stepping rings and a reverse mount ring to mate the two lenses together. Exposure is going to take some testing with polaroids but can be worked out. This setup will save on bellows extension and on buying specialty gear.

[Richard Raymond]

Clarification on previous post. The magnification is the main lens size divided by the reversed front mounted lens. 180mm/35mm = ~5 times. A 50mm lens on the front of a 210mm lens will give you about 4 times magnification.

[Ernest Purdum]

There is some information on this subject at the bottom of the "lenses" articles category on the home page.

[John Chervinsky]

John, you need a shorter lens. Adding extension the way you want to adds unsteadiness and will make focusing and composing impossible, instead of merely difficult.

Thinking of cine lenses, the 25/1.9 Cine Ektar II, reversed and shot at f/2.8, marches, possibly beats, the 25/3.5 Luminar shot at f/3.5. I still use the Luminar, mainly because the CE II is a little harder to use.

How about a Wollensak 1" 1.9 Cine Raptar? I have one of those! -John

[Phil Hudson]

I regularly use enlarging lenses reverse mounted on a shutter as LF macro lenses, with excellent results.

Enlarging lenses are usually optimised for a scale of 1:6 or 1:8 so when reversed they are optimised for 6:1 and 8:1. Mounting on a shutter is not always needed because of the potentially lengthy exposure times needed but it is convenient and means that you don't have to adapt another lensboard just for the occasional macro job.

When I looked into it, I had a few extra reversing adapters made because of how hard they were to ge hold of and how useful they are to have around. These allow you to reverse mount a short focal length Rodagon or EL-Nikkor "N" (the sort with 40.5mm front threads) onto a Copal 1 shutter.

PM me if you go down the enlarging lens route and need the shutter adapter.

Hope it works out.

Phil

[Dan Fromm]

How about a Wollensak 1" 1.9 Cine Raptar? I have one of those! -JohnDamfino, John. I'm prejudiced against Wolly cine lenses. Why don't you try it and report back? Then you'll know whether it will do and I'll know whether my prejudice is a mistake.

[Darryl Baird]

I finally had a spare moment and went to your website, John. To my surprise, I saw familiar work.... your photos were in the International Fototage 2005 festival in Mannheim, right? I thought I recognized those wrenches.

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

John, did you reverse the enlarger lens?

Otherwise, I second Klaus' recommendation with one reservation. Macro Nikkors, Nikon's answer to Zeiss' Luminars, are also very good.

I agree Dan, just hard to find (harder than Luminars) and quite expensive because of that.

Cheers, klaus

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

John -
I own and use a set of Luminars (and a 19mm MacroNikkor), and agree with the previous comments about their superb optical quality. For very good performance, and far less money, I would recommend initially getting a used movie lens, for 8mm or 16mm format, and and using it reversed on a lensboard. These are always available on eBay and other online auction sites.

However, it will be very challenging to accomplish what you want. If you assume a spherical water drop size of 2mm diameter, at 10X this would be only 20mm wide (less than an inch) on your film. The depth of field at f/8 on 4x5 film would be approximately only .16mm, and your effective aperture would be a huge f/88, introducing both resolution and lighting issues. Even if your droplet is resting on a surface, and is a flattened hemisphere, the height far exceeds the depth of field. You may wish to consider using a smaller format, where less magnification is required, or making scans of several images at different image depths, and compositing them with a program like Helicon Focus or CombineZM.

Good luck with your project!

very true, I cannot more to agree on what David said. Except you want to go "artistic" and use the very shallow DOF as a part of your composition...

Cheers, Klaus

[SAShruby]

Did you try reversing the El-Nikkor? That would put you in its optimal magnification range. I would expect good results from doing this.

Steve

El-nikkor is a process lend, optimized for 1:1 enlagements with not enough depth of field, even stopped down. I think process lenses aren't the best option. More like Carl-Zeis lenses for Praktica, 50mm F1.4 not F2.8. On ebay goes about 50 bucks. Can be stopped down to F32

[Dan Fromm]

El-nikkor is a process lend, optimized for 1:1 enlagements with not enough depth of field, even stopped down. I think process lenses aren't the best option. More like Carl-Zeis lenses for Praktica, 50mm F1.4 not F2.8. On ebay goes about 50 bucks. Can be stopped down to F32El Nikkors are enlarging lenses, optimized for, depending on focal length, 2x - 6x to 10x.

You may be thinking of Apo Nikkors, which are process lenses and are optimized for 1:4 to 4:1 but which hold their corrections well to infinity. The shortest Apo Nikkor is, IIRC, 180 mm. Shooting one of them at 10:1 requires 1980 mm of extension (approximate film plane to lens board distance), is not very practical.

The taking lenses you recommend are, relative to the real macro lenses and reversed cine lens (Zeiss Luminars, Nikon Macro Nikkors, 25/1.4 Cine Ektar II), lousy.

The lenses usually used at the magnifications the OP wants to work at -- 5:1 to 10:1, possibly higher -- are diffraction limited wide open. Stopping them down simply loses image quality to diffraction, does not gain usable depth of field.

To learn more about photomacrography as she is spoke, buy and read, e.g., Brian Bracegirdle's book Scientific Photomacrography.

[sog1927]

I definitely agree with Dan here. The El-Nikkor (reversed) should be an excellent lens, but it's just too long for what you're trying to do - you'll need 880mm of extension to get 10x with that lens. Keeping something like that rigid and aligned (particularly if you're cobbling together extension tubes out of cardboard) will be almost impossible and extremely frustrating. How long is the bellows on your camera? How are you planning to light this?

Steve


John, you need a shorter lens. Adding extension the way you want to adds unsteadiness and will make focusing and composing impossible, instead of merely difficult.

Thinking of cine lenses, the 25/1.9 Cine Ektar II, reversed and shot at f/2.8, marches, possibly beats, the 25/3.5 Luminar shot at f/3.5. I still use the Luminar, mainly because the CE II is a little harder to use.

[SAShruby]

El Nikkors are enlarging lenses, optimized for, depending on focal length, 2x - 6x to 10x.

You may be thinking of Apo Nikkors, which are process lenses and are optimized for 1:4 to 4:1 but which hold their corrections well to infinity. The shortest Apo Nikkor is, IIRC, 180 mm. Shooting one of them at 10:1 requires 1980 mm of extension (approximate film plane to lens board distance), is not very practical.

The taking lenses you recommend are, relative to the real macro lenses and reversed cine lens (Zeiss Luminars, Nikon Macro Nikkors, 25/1.4 Cine Ektar II), lousy.

The lenses usually used at the magnifications the OP wants to work at -- 5:1 to 10:1, possibly higher -- are diffraction limited wide open. Stopping them down simply loses image quality to diffraction, does not gain usable depth of field.

To learn more about photomacrography as she is spoke, buy and read, e.g., Brian Bracegirdle's book Scientific Photomacrography.

Damn right you are. Apo's are process lens.
To the lousiness of lens I sugessted, I just comment that I owned Carl Zeis F1.4 lens and I found them very sharp. Not the F1.8 (sorry for the F2.8). They were manufactured in East Germany back in era and they are a lot better that F1.8. The diference between those to is like comparing Ferrari to Honda Civic.

Also, I just used and example to where you cat stop those down, I didn't recommended the F32 aperture for macrophotography. I'd probably stop them down to f5.6 - f8 to maximize the lens performance.

[Dan Fromm]

Peter, above 5:1 f/5.6-f/8 is too small. With the exception of a few reversed taking lenses, e.g., 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS, which is best above 5:1 at f/4 and that Cine Ektar I keep mentioning, which is better at f/2.8 than at f/1.9, above 5:1 its best to shoot wide open. Please reread what I wrote about diffraction-limited lenses.

[John Chervinsky]

Here is an image of a droplet onto 4x5 type 55 film with only the borders cropped. The pipette is around 1mm at the top of the droplet. It was shot with a reversed Wollensak 1" 1.9 Cine Raptar.

[David Millard]

Nice!

[John Chervinsky]

I would like to mention that the only way to get the depth of field that I did was to stop it down all the way - this runs counter to Dan's experience with the Cine Ektar. This lens has variable focus down to less than 2 feet, thus being optimized to my bellows extension. Is this also the case with the Ektar? Dan, based on the image, should I still spring for one? Thanks.

Best,

-John

[Dan Fromm]

John, not to be excessively critical, but the pipette is way outside y'r DoF. It is impossible to tell much from a small digitized image, but I don't think it is as sharp as it could be. This isn't to say that it doesn't work as an image or communicate what you want, just that it could be sharper.

The diffraction limit depends only on aperture. Try the Cine Raptar wide open, down 1 stop, down 2 stops, ... and see what happens.

I don't see what the lens' focusing scale has to do with anything. All that the lens' focusing helical do is move the entire lens (that's the glasses and diaphragm) farther from/closer to the film plane. I mean, it isn't a zoom, its a fixed focal length lens.

Unless the Wolly 1"/1.9 is a good copy of the 25/1.9 CE II, the CE II should do better. As I said, mine is quite competitive above 10:1 (that's where I did the testing) with the three 25/3.5 Luminars I tried (mine, two borrowed from Charlie Barringer).

So if I were you I'd save up until I had accumulated the $20-30 a used 25/1.9 CE II should cost and then buy one.

Cheers,

Dan

Oh, yeah, another lens in that class that's usually not too expensive is the 25/2.8 Summar made for the YELUU projection microscope attachment for some Prado projectors. But be aware (a) that it is fixed aperture (and that should tell you something) and (b) is optimized for magnifications well above 10:1. Below 10:1 it isn't that great, above it is very good.

[John Chervinsky]

I didn't realize the CE II's were so cheap! Also, the ones that I've seen so far are attached to a camera. Your points are well taken, - although this lens does seem to perform better stopped down. I'll report back once I have quantitative data. Cheers. -J