Which Macro Lens

[Greg Liscio]

I have an EbonySV45U2 4X5 with max bellows extension of 510mm. What is the advantage of 80 vs 120mm macro lens. Can I get magnification to 4X with either lens because I have the bellows length (320mm - 480mm)? Am I calculating that correctly.

And to put some fuel on the fire, are the Schneider macro lenses better than the Rodenstock macros.

Thanks all

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Greg,

Most macro lenses would be optimized for 1-1, you may get better results with a reversed enlarging lens for 4X.

Schneider, Rodenstock, Fuji, Nikon and Leica are all fine, pick by price and availability.

Remember a well fitted lens shade, bellows flair at 4X can be a problem (on top of everything else)

[willwilson]

I used to use a Nikkor Macro 120mm, but I downgraded to a Polaroid Tominon 127mm f4.7. It turned out to be an upgrade. I love that little lens, super sharp at 1:1 or more. They also typically come with a self cocking shutter!

[Pete Watkins]

I'll second what Will says. Tominon's are great. They all seem to fit the one shutter as an added bonus.
Pete.

[Bosaiya]

I've got Tominon's, Schneider's, and all sorts of oddball lenses. They're all different, none is better or worse. Try them out and choose the one that seems like the best fit for your purposes.

[Ernest Purdum]

lTo get 1:1 magnification you rack out two focal lengths. Each focal length further will get you one more even magnification. 3 focal lengths = 2:1 and so forth. 4X with a 120mm lens requires 5 X 120 = 600mm.

Obviously, it's easier to get magnification with a short focal length, but you can run into problems with the front of your camera getting into the way of your lighting.

Macro is a rather specialized field of work. If you wearch macro on the Forum you'll find recommendations for books on the subject, Perhaps your library will have them. There are also some brief articles dealing with aspects of the subject amongst those at the bottom of the Forum home page.

[Greg Liscio]

Is anyone using a 180 Macro? From what I've heard, the 120 macro offers the better balance between image size and depth of field.

Thanks

[Bob Salomon]

Is anyone using a 180 Macro? From what I've heard, the 120 macro offers the better balance between image size and depth of field.

Thanks

Then you also have to bear in mind that the shorter focal length will also foreshorten. Items closer to the lens will be reproduced larger then things further from the lens. So it's a tradeoff. 120 requires less extension to get to a given magnification but 180 will reproduce things more realistically and a 210 or 300mm even more.

So it is what magnification do you need? What is the image (if you are doing round things and want them to stay round then you either need a longer lens or will have to move back and lose magnification. How much bellows extension do you have?

You won't have much depth of field with any of them if you are actually in macro range.

Then you will know the best focal length for you.

[Bosaiya]

Is anyone using a 180 Macro? From what I've heard, the 120 macro offers the better balance between image size and depth of field.


I have a 180 Schneider that's beautiful. Very nice. Most of the photos in my Angels & Insects (http://www.angelsandinsects.com) collection were shot with it.

[Greg Liscio]

Thank you Bob. Always a pleasure reading your input.
Greg

[Ken Lee]

You might be better off if you got an old 8x10 or 5x7 camera with a 4x5 reducing back - anything that will give you more much more bellows draw. As Bob pointed out, if you go with too short a lens (due to limited bellows draw) you'll get in so close that you'll see distortion of shapes, foreshortening etc. This presumes you don't want that "fisheye" effect :-)

[Mike1234]

If the OP can afford an Ebony he can afford a Canham. The wooden 4x5 uses all the same parts as the 5x7 version except the back. Consequently, it has a 635mm+ bellows draw. Add a 3" hat to that and you've broken into 700mm++ territory. :)

[pierre salomon]

One of the best way I use my Nikkor 120 AM is to front fit it with a Nikon close up No 4 T lens. This attachment is glass made and seems to have all the optics quality of a typical macro lens. It's almost double the magnification of the 120 without racking out the bellows. Good luck.

[Mark Sawyer]

Read Ernest Purdhams post again. Much of it is about the bellows extension at the desired magnification.

For 1:1 on the negative, process lenses work well. If you go much beyond that, you need a dedicated macro, especially if you enlarge. (Contact printing lets you get away with murder, and rightfully so, considering the tonal range..)

[Mike1234]

Greg, in theory you probably have enough bellows for 4:1 magnification with either an 80mm or 120mm. Your calculations are correct. If, however, the 120mm lens you choose actually focuses at 140mm then you'll need 560mm of bellows draw which, as you know, is 50mm more than you have. Should this happen you could just add a 2" extension board although you'll not really see much difference... something like 3.85:1 instead of 4:1.

I don't know which brand macro lens (Schneider or Rodenstock) is better. But I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. As others alluded to, you're best off finding one corrected for your target magnification.

[Greg Liscio]

I have a 180 Schneider that's beautiful. Very nice. Most of the photos in my Angels & Insects (http://www.angelsandinsects.com) collection were shot with it.

Incredible Pictures! What was you magnification ratio - 1:1 or 2:1?

[argos33]

Incredible Pictures! What was you magnification ratio - 1:1 or 2:1?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it say 4x5 Polaroid Negative? Thus implying a huge magnification? Wouldn't 2:1 only be twice as large as the insect on the ground glass?

Bosaiya, how much bellows draw did you need for those? Must have been quite the setup.

[Bosaiya]

Thanks, I'm glad you liked them. Magnifications range from 6-12x, sometimes as large as 24x but those tend to be difficult for technical reasons. I have eight-feet worth of bellows.

Here's a typical setup and result. As you can see there's not much to it, just smoke and mirrors.



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3291/3027650624_47f8a5a1bf.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2569/4074316731_071e981f42.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2697/4074316729_974c26c2e6.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2539/4074316725_03b11a3fc9.jpg