please recommend a lens (or lenses)

[sesshin]

Hi. I had made a similar thread a while back but didn't have enough info at the time, so now I'm back with more specifics.

I am going to be photographing paintings with a Cambo 4x5 (16" bellows draw) and a Better Light back. The paintings will vary in size between 8x10" and 24x36" and I have about 12-15' or so in my studio from painting to back wall.

With all these factors can anyone recommend a lens for me that would best suit my needs? I am leaning towards something like the Sironar-S in 180mm, but I'm not sure if that is a good middle ground or if it would be too limiting. I am not opposed to having, say, a 150 and a 210 either if that would be better in my situation.

I am also not sure if should be looking at newer APO lenses (the only kinds I have experience with) or older enlarging or macro lenses.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

[John Kasaian]

I'd think a 180mmm would be a reasonable middle ground---about the equivalent of my 14" Commercial Ektar on 8x10. You should certainly have the bellows for it. Any modern rodenstock. nikor or schneider should work well but even a graphic arts lens in a barrel should give excellent results too. You might even consider a rd apo artar.

[Ted Harris]

Since you've already invested in the Betterlight back I assume you want the absolute best you can get in terms of images. If you are going to be shooting at a 1:1 ratio then get either the Schneider or Rodenstock 180 macro lens. I have used both and see no difference. Installing the proper lighting will be as important as the lens.

[Kirk Fry]

What Ted said. Check it with photos of a gray card or some other uniform light colored material. You will be surprised at how your eyes think the lighting is equal and the film/ photo sensor thinks otherwise. K

[sesshin]

Thanks for the input.


Since you've already invested in the Betterlight back I assume you want the absolute best you can get in terms of images. If you are going to be shooting at a 1:1 ratio then get either the Schneider or Rodenstock 180 macro lens. I have used both and see no difference. Installing the proper lighting will be as important as the lens.

Yes, I do want to get the best image quality as possible, but I will only be shooting some stuff at 1:1. There will be quite a bit of other stuff up to 24x36 or so, so 1:4 and up I guess. Will the macros be able to cover that adequately?

And I have all the lighting covered already. The lens is just the last step I'm trying to work out.

[sesshin]

Bump for another question:

Are there any lenses optimized for a 1:2 to 1:10 reproduction ratios? The macros I've looked at usually have ratios from 3:1 and 1:3, and the standard lenses usually have ratios from 1:5 to infinity, but I don't see anything that seems to fall in the 1:2 to 1:10 range.

Is there a catchall lens that could be recommended for that? Or would I be better off just getting both a macro and a standard lens to cover that range? Sharpness is critical since I am using the digital back.

[Kirk Fry]

G-Clarons are 1:5 to 5:1 in design and theory, mostly we use them at infinitiy and f22.

K

[Ernest Purdum]

Most process lenses, both the earlier narrow angle types like the Repro-Claron. and the later wider angle types like the G-Claron, are quite tolerant of differing magnification ratios.

[Dan Fromm]

Bump for another question:

Are there any lenses optimized for a 1:2 to 1:10 reproduction ratios? The macros I've looked at usually have ratios from 3:1 and 1:3, and the standard lenses usually have ratios from 1:5 to infinity, but I don't see anything that seems to fall in the 1:2 to 1:10 range.

Is there a catchall lens that could be recommended for that? Or would I be better off just getting both a macro and a standard lens to cover that range? Sharpness is critical since I am using the digital back.Optimized for 1:2 to 10:1? Many enlarging lenses.

IMO, you're much too worried about optimality. Something like a 305/9 Apo Nikkor shot wide open (or near wide open) will do what you need. I suggest that lens not because I know from experience that it is better than other similar lenses but because I know from experience that it gains little sharpness on stopping down.

[Bjorn Nilsson]

I think that the Fujinon A 180mm f/9 is optimized for that range. Besides the Fujinon A series are among the very sharpest lenses around. (Check Kerry Thalman's site for more nice comments on the Fujinons.)
And as Dan said, you shouldn't worry too much about macro lenses being optimized for ... Any good lens will do nicely and there are plenty around to be found from a couple of hundred dollars or so. E.g. a Sironar or a Symmar or ...

//Björn

[Joseph O'Neil]

Another vote for a good process lens - rd artar, G-claron, apo ronar, apo nikkor, etc. Ge slightly larger than you think you need - that is 210mm or larger.

For what it is worth, the type of work you plan to do is exactly the sort of thing a process camera was used for, so IMO, why not a process lens.
even illumination or lighting of your subject, and proper colour balance if you are using artificial lighting. there are lightbulbs/lamps that provide proper temperature balance for indoor use, and you might want to look these things up depending on how many paintings you are going to shoot.

Perhaps a bigger issue will be
good luck

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi
I recomand a Macro lens the 120mm APO Sironar is sharper the my G-Glaron and much contrastier and I use it up to 1:10 without any problem.
Its on hi resolution backs best not to stop to much down and you get all thad sharpness with it at f 8 on flat subjects you will never see with an other lens!
I know it from test with the Anagram high resolution back, from friends!
Take care to make shure the camera is in exact allignment to your picture, and you will be happy, with it!
Armin