Macro lenses

[argos33]

Hi,
I am fairly new to LF photography, and was wondering if any of you could recommend some good lenses for close-up work. I have a cambo 8x10 and the 300mm Schneider Xenar that came with it can only do about a 1:1 ratio.

What exactly makes some lenses more "macro" than others?

Are macro lenses for 8x10 hard to find and/or really expensive?

I would be using it mainly for cave photography, so a barrel lens would even work ok, since I usually just open the shutter, light the passage/formation and then close it again. A friend of mine has used magnifying glasses with a MF camera to get pretty good results, but I am somewhat skeptical of the quality. Has anyone doing close-up work experimented with this?

Does anybody have an 8x10 macro lens they want to sell?

Thanks,
Evan

[Bob Salomon]

The 120 and 180mm Apo Macro Sironar lenses are corrected for 1:5 to 2:1 and at 1:1 with 8x10 have a coverage of 415mm with the 180 and 277mm with the 120mm.

Naturally, being macro lenses, there performance at infinity is not very good. But then lenses corrected for infinity would not perform nearly as well as these for macro. Especially if there is important information at the edges.

[Dan Fromm]

Interesting that you intend to expose your 8x10 camera to mud and water.

Are you serious about wanting to shoot 8x10 at magnifications > 1:1? I ask because the extension needed to get magnification m is f * (1 + m). With a lens of any length at all, you'll need considerable extension to get to 1:1, let alone above.

Sounds like your camera has 600 mm extension. If so, you might want to try a 150 mm enlarging lens. Any of them should cover 8x10 at 1:1 and higher, and will go to 3:1 with 600 mm extension. I just received a 150/5.6 Comparon, which will go in a #0 shutter, making using it reversed (necessary above 1:1) simple. I've had a weakness for Comparons (enlarging Xenars) ever since I bought a 105/4.5 more or less by accident and learned that according to Schneider they're better than Componons for enlarging < 6x. That's taking at >= 1:6 mounted normally and <= 6:1 reversed.

Cheers, look forward to much conflicting advice,

Dan

[Mark Sawyer]

I've had good luck using a Konica GR-II 150mm process lens for close up work, even twice life size. These are modern coated lenses commonly available in a barrel mount for pretty reasonable prices, usually $100 or less. Sorry, mine's not for sale!

Other process lenses, like the Eskofot Ultragon, should also work well. An enlarger lens (as suggested by Dan Fromm) should also work well, though you may want to turn it (or the process lens) backwards for more than 1:1.

And at the extensions you'll be using, don't forget the bellows extension factor and reciprocity failure...

[Scott Rosenberg]

i'll second the suggestion for a rodenstock makro-sironar. i've got a recent vintage 180 and it is really, REALLY sharp.

[CG]

Hi,
What exactly makes some lenses more "macro" than others?

Are macro lenses for 8x10 hard to find and/or really expensive?
Evan

My simplistic answer - Macros are basically just lenses that perform at their best very close up.

Typically for LF they are medium-ish focal length and corrected for work at something like 1 to 1 reproduction ratio or a bit closer - where the image on the film is the same size as the object being photographed.

You also may occasionally run across "process lenses" which are corrected for close work. I think most of them are normal to longish focal lengths and normal to narrowish circle of coverage, with quite a bit of variation from design to design.

There are also "micro lenses designed to work extremely close up too.

I'm not sure there are really dedicated 8x10 macro lenses - but instead just LF macro lenses. Bob Salomon mentions a couple of the kind of lenses I am thinking of.

How close do you really want to get - or put another way - what reproduction ratio would you get if you had your choice?

Best,

C

[Dave_B]

I'm not sure there are really dedicated 8x10 macro lenses - but instead just LF macro lenses.C

The Nikkor-AM 210 is a purpose built macro lens that will work for cameras up to 10"x12". However, they are not easy to find nor cheap when you do find one. Expect to spend close to $1K for one in good shape. I'm not sure I would have the courage to take mine into a cave.
Cheers,
Dave B.

[argos33]

Thanks for the info everyone. Ideally I would like to get a 2:1 or 3:1 reproduction ratio (or more). Would the Eskofot Ultragon also work as a decent wide-angle lens when focused closer than infinity? What would you guys pick between a Comparon enlarging lens and Eskofot Ultragon for close-up work? Or would they be pretty much the same? I noticed the Eskofot stops down to f/64, which I imagine would be beneficial with such small DOF? I've done roughly 1:1 macro shots and have needed to stop down to f/32 or f/45 before.

Dan, the camera will not be exposed to mud and water. Most caves here in Colorado have neither. They do, however, have some of the most amazing helectite formations in the country. I have been a cave photographer for several years now and know how to protect my equipment. The rail on my Cambo is 30" and I am sure I have gotten reproduction ratios of 1:1 or more (comparing negative to object). Have you tried using any of your comparons reversed like you suggested? Was the quality pretty good?

Thanks for everyone's advice, I will try experimenting with some enlarging lenses.

Evan

[John O'Connell]

I've worked with an 8x10 in shallow caves on the East Coast to shoot ice formations.

I used a process lens, a 355 G-Claron. It worked fine, but were I to do it again, I'd try to use something in the 150 to 210 range, and I'd use a regular f/5.6 plasmat. If you plan on working between 2:1 and 3:1 I'd use a 150.

I submit that you probably won't see a great deal of difference in quality between modern LF lenses for this purpose. LF macro lenses are superb, but a typical 150mm plasmat will cover the format at about 1:2 and costs very little used. The macro lenses cover less and can cost exorbidant sums.

I'd avoid wide angles for dedicated macro use. I've pressed them into service before on 8x10---a 159 Wolly and a 90 Super Angulon clone---and while they work, they're not nearly as nice as a plasmat.

[jetcode]

i'll second the suggestion for a rodenstock makro-sironar. i've got a recent vintage 180 and it is really, REALLY sharp.

I have a 210mm version and it is a great lens for closeup work.

[Peter K]

Thanks for the info everyone. Ideally I would like to get a 2:1 or 3:1 reproduction ratio (or more). Would the Eskofot Ultragon also work as a decent wide-angle lens when focused closer than infinity? What would you guys pick between a Comparon enlarging lens and Eskofot Ultragon for close-up work? Or would they be pretty much the same? I noticed the Eskofot stops down to f/64, which I imagine would be beneficial with such small DOF? I've done roughly 1:1 macro shots and have needed to stop down to f/32 or f/45 before.
There was a thread about the Ultragon some time ago, it looks like an Ultragon is the lens you are looking for.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=10311

Peter K

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks for the info everyone. Ideally I would like to get a 2:1 or 3:1 reproduction ratio (or more). Would the Eskofot Ultragon also work as a decent wide-angle lens when focused closer than infinity? What would you guys pick between a Comparon enlarging lens and Eskofot Ultragon for close-up work? Or would they be pretty much the same? I noticed the Eskofot stops down to f/64, which I imagine would be beneficial with such small DOF? I've done roughly 1:1 macro shots and have needed to stop down to f/32 or f/45 before.

Dan, the camera will not be exposed to mud and water. Most caves here in Colorado have neither. They do, however, have some of the most amazing helectite formations in the country. I have been a cave photographer for several years now and know how to protect my equipment. The rail on my Cambo is 30" and I am sure I have gotten reproduction ratios of 1:1 or more (comparing negative to object). Have you tried using any of your comparons reversed like you suggested? Was the quality pretty good?

Thanks for everyone's advice, I will try experimenting with some enlarging lenses.

EvanEvan, thanks for the explanation of what you're about.

Before you spend a penny on lenses, buy a copy of Lester Lefkowitz' book The Manual of Closeup Photography. This is a good book, easily found via used book finders such as addall.com. You'll learn more from it, and more quickly, than you will from random answers to random questions on bulletin boards. BBSs are great fun, but they're not a good tool for getting an education.

Your comment "I noticed the Eskofot stops down to f/64, which I imagine would be beneficial with such small DOF?" makes it clear that you haven't internalized the idea of effective aperture. With a lens whose pupillary magnification is 1, effective aperture at magnification m is (1 + m) * aperture set. You might as well use a pinhole as shoot at 2:1 at f/64 set. One of the apparent paradoxes of photomacrography is that stopping down can reduce DoF.

I haven't used a Comparon above 1:1. But remember that a lens that works well at 1:3 mounted normally, where I have used the 105, will work equally well at 3:1 reversed.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

[Ernest Purdum]

The Comparon is a Tessar (very asymmetrical) design. It is optimized for enlargements of 4:1. Schneider recommended its use at ratios from 2:1 to 6:1, suggesting the Componon at greater ratios. Because of the asymmetry, it would be very important to reverse mount it when the subject is smaller than the film size.

Most process lenses are dialyte or Plasmat types, symmetrical or near-symmetrical, and less finicky about ratio than the Comparon.

There is a small article on lenses for macro work amongst the articles listed at the bottom of the home page.

[argos33]

Thanks for the advice Dan, I will try to find that book after work and read up on macro photography. I have never tried using these reproduction ratios before, let alone on LF, and obviously have a lot to learn. As for buying a lens, I mainly wanted to see if it would be prohibitively expensive or not. I will do more research before buying anything.

Ernest, thanks for the tip. I will check out that article as well.

Evan

[Ted Harris]

Evan,

First, let me underscore Dan's recommendation regarding the Lefkowitz book. Second, a few additional points for you to consider. Almost any modern, well corrected, apochromatic lens will do an acceptable job of macro work in the 2:1 - 3:1 range you are contemplating. Where the lenses that have been specifically designed for macro work shine is their ability to maintain corner-to-corner resolution and acutance at the macro ranges, something that the normally corrected lenses generally can't do. I used to do some LF commercial macro work shooting jewlery. As part of that work I did a side-by-side test of a 180 apo macro sironar, a 180 macro symmar hm and a 180 apo sironar n. There was no visible difference (to the naked eye) of the performance of the three lenses and reproduction ratios short of true macro (1:1). At reproduction ratios of 1:1 and 2:1 the true macro lenses were the clear winners with much better resolution and shadow detail in the corners of the full frame image.

[Armin Seeholzer]

And the F9 lenses are very dark at 1:1 I worked with a G-Glaron from time to time a very fine lens but at 1:1 or 2:1 you need very strong light to see something on the groundglas thats the bad thing about process lenses!
Know I have a 120 Macro Sironar with f 5,6 for focusing, much easier to see it on the groundglass, so if you need it much then go for a f 5.6 lens.
Or you will get sooner or later frustrated like I was!
Hope it helps, the right tool for the job makes live much easier!
Give to you as a chrismas present! Armin from the holy mountains of Switzerland