Is it ok to use macro lens for non-macro works?

[Ryan Kim]

Hi,
I am wondering if I could use macro lens for other works too just as with non-macro lenses. I used to have 110mm XL for 4x5, and I really liked it. However I realized at that moment that I did not really need this much of image circle because I could not really make much movements with 110mm length. The back and the front was too close. I am, where to buy 4x5 camera again, wanting to get a lens between 110-120mm, and I found this lens, 120mm Macro Symmar HM which has very good image circle too but half price of 110mm XL. But I am not sure if I could use this macro lens normally as I used 110mm XL. Money is not the first reason not to buy 110mm XL again. If I do not really need this much image circle for 4x5, then I would not want to spend too much for it.

[Bob Salomon]

You can use any lens for any purpose you want but lenses are built to perform for the purpose they are designed for. Using a macro lens at infinity will give you an image but not nearly as good a one as the image that a general purpose lens would give. Similarly, the general purpose lens will not perform as well as the macro at macro ratios.

But that large image circle that you see for a macro lens is at macro distances - not at infinity. The circle might be as much as half the size, or smaller, depending on the image ratio that the circle was given for. Some 120 macro lenses might not even cover 4x5 with movements at f22 at infinity.

[Bosaiya]

I have a number of macro lenses that work well for both.

[Dan Fromm]

Ryan, see http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/pdf/foto/sr_ma.pdf

Schneider recommends that Macro-Symmars be used in the range 1:4 - 4:1, says that the 120's image circle at 1:1 is 250 mm. This translates to 125 mm at infinity.

[Gene McCluney]

With large format, you are either making contact prints, or very small degrees of enlargements (as compared to enlargements from 35mm and 120). Almost all lenses can make acceptable images under those conditions.

[percepts]

try using a macro for a head and shoulders portrait and see how flattering the result is.
People don't like being able to see every skin pore and blemish on their face.

[Bosaiya]

I dug up some old test photos from years ago. These were done using a 180mm macro lens.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2509/4147492830_06500ab64c.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2539/4147492824_ab00468c9c.jpg

[emo supremo]

As Ryan points out there is a big difference in price. Could anyone comment more on the performance issues? It "seems" (what do I know; i've not been doing LF work very long) that there is not a lot of movement of standards with respect to macro work. I wish to hear more about this because I've always had trouble with (insufficient) DOField with my 35mm macro work with a Micro Nikkor on the PB4 bellows and wonder if there is any comparison. My guess is that the problem gets worse as one goes to larger formats; <scream> "Is there an optics doctor in the house?" Seriously, is there real advantage to working MF, 4x5 or even going to 8x10 with regard to DOF or is it a plague in every land? (translate: should Ryan and I take a bath on buying a macro lens?).

As an aside: how about the issue of a LF vs a MF lens? I don't really think this deserved its own thread but (1) Bosaiya's post (re: two flattering portraits) sparked a connection with a similar argument in favor of portraiture with the Makro Planar 120mm and (2) I assume the 4x5's are probably not (?) going to be contact printed. If yes read on.

Maybe Ryan should be asking whether of not to go MF? Is there any advantage of an LF macro lens over MF? Most of us can recall seeing a side by side comparison of photos from normal vs. macro lens. I've never seen a book present a side by side comparison of the results using a normal vs macro lens BETWEEN formats. Any body disagree?

I'll paste from K Rockwell: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/macro.htm

begin paste "Macro gets easier as your format gets smaller. It's trivial with point-and-shoot digital cameras, easy with digital and 35 mm SLRs, doable with medium format film cameras and next to impossible with 4 x 5" cameras.

Physics makes this easier as the sensor or film gets smaller. As film gets bigger the depth of field collapses to nothing, and the f/stops are approaching pinholes and eliminating resolution due to diffraction and making lighting impossible." stop quoting KR

Hmm, fairly strong and clear statement. You wonder how'd they survived in the good old days. But he's spot on with regard to DOField.

Economics: LF lens seems interesting but as the resale market in LF contracts the Hasselblad stuff seems more sellable. This might be an expensive experiment because if you try to sell your lens next year in this type of economy (re: "market has gone very sour" in the "Lounge" thread) you/I are going to take a bath. I've debated whether to purchase a 120mm Hasselblad Makro Planar vs a LF lens. Since the summer prices have hovered between the lowest to highest (wining bids) of 439 to about 560 US$ for the CF T* version so there doesn't seem to be as much of an issue with regard to prices in the LF vs MF categories. I feel the Hassy is more 'sellable'.

In summary, assuming the MF and LF negatives end up in an enlarger and there is no pressing issue for inordinately large enlargements, isn't macro work more the realm of MF?
Sorry to complicate your life Ryan but misery loves company.

[emo supremo]

I really like the look of portraits done with macro lenses and wish mine came out looking like yours.
Just a thought. Aren't macro lenses slower and perhaps their qualities for portraiture might be partially attributed to a general tendency to underexpose the film? I'm reaching but just a thought.
About the previous post: I'm sorry to have gone off on a tangent but my thoughts got out ahead of me while working on several threads simultaneously and lost the 'thread' of your thread.

[Dan Fromm]

I really like the look of portraits done with macro lenses and wish mine came out looking like yours.
Just a thought. Aren't macro lenses slower and perhaps their qualities for portraiture might be partially attributed to a general tendency to underexpose the film? I'm reaching but just a thought.
About the previous post: I'm sorry to have gone off on a tangent but my thoughts got out ahead of me while working on several threads simultaneously and lost the 'thread' of your thread.Eh? Wot?

Modern macro lenses for larger formats usually have maximum apertures around f/5.6. Older ones, f/6.3. The lenses we use at normal distances are typically f/5.6 or slower. And we typically shoot at apertures no larger than f/11 regardless of magnification.

The lens' maximum aperture doesn't force underexposure. Shooting closeup doesn't force underexposure. How to expose is fully under the photographer's control, isn't given by the lens used. That said, ignorance of the relationship between magnification, aperture set, and effective aperture may cause inadvertent underexposure when working closeup. This shouldn't be a problem when shooting head and shoulders portraits.

Cheers,

Dan

[Dan Fromm]

As Ryan points out there is a big difference in price. Could anyone comment more on the performance issues? <large snip>

Performance issues? There's a law of nature to the effect that a lens can be optimized for only one pair of conjugates, but some design types, e.g., dialyte, lose little when used at magnifications far from the ones they are optimized for. This is why Rodenstock used to advertise that Apo Ronars were better at distance than telephoto lenses. Used to advertise, modern teles for LF are much better than the teles on the market when Rodenstock's marketers made the claim.

All that said, a modern lens optimized for closeup will perform better closeup than a modern lens optimized for distance, and vice versa. Whether the gains in image quality from using the right lens for the job is worth the cost of buying two is an individual decision that depends in part on how much the negs are to be enlarged.

Rockwell is an entertainer, not a serious person. Small formats force low magnification. At the same magnification and effective aperture, all formats have the same DoF, but larger formats capture more of the subject.

The OP wanted to know whether a 120 mm macro lens could be used for general out-and-about photography on 4x5. Short answer, no because it won't cover the format at infinity.

Whether macro work is better done with a smaller or a larger format depends on the size of the final print. My good 35 mm KM slides won't print satisfactorily at 8x10 because I shoot at too small an effective aperture. My good 2x3 E100G trannies shot at the same effective aperture will print will at 8x10 because they don't need to be enlarged as much and because the film isn't that much less sharp than KM.

But those 2x3 shots contain much more subject than the 35 mm ones. Here's an exercise for you: calculate DoF and maximum resolution possible in the plane of best focus for a shot at 1:1 and for a shot at 2.25:1. That's the difference in magnification between a 1:1 frame filler on 35 mm and the equivalent frame filler on 2x3.

Cheers,

Dan

[Armin Seeholzer]

The OP wanted to know whether a 120 mm macro lens could be used for general out-and-about photography on 4x5. Short answer, no because it won't cover the format at infinity.

My APO Macro Sironar 120mm Covers 4x5 at infinity and up to 1:5 it has a covering power of 201 mm at f8-11.
But its not so easy to focus sharp at infinity, beacuse it is far away from its normal use!
Up to 1:10 its really top!


Cheers Armin

[Bosaiya]

The problem with discussions of macro photography as I see them is that they tend to assume that everyone knows what everyone else is trying to accomplish. It's probably safe to assume "more of the same" but then you never know. People tend to start from the angle of assuming that maximum DOF is the ultimate goal and work from there, which might not be the case at all (again, it probably is, but it's good to know from the beginning).

I find it easier to work in large format due to the modular bellows-based nature of the camera system I use. Getting more magnification is never the point of difficulty and the large range of apertures, 5.6-64 on the Schneider, gives lots of options for focus. The ground glass is well-suited for viewing the composition, plane of focus, etc. without squinting. The tradeoff is size and weight, roughly that of a small Eastern European car.

I have a rekajiggered movements-based MF macro setup but it really feels like a compromise every time I use it, neither as portable as small format or as controllable as large format. Figure out what you want to get out of it, and if it's really something you want to pursue, then grab it by the throat and run with it.

[r.e.]

I find it easier to work in large format due to the modular bellows-based nature of the camera system I use.

If I can ask, what system are you using?

[emo supremo]

Silly comment that comes from talking out loud. Yeah, I didn't think so either but sometimes screwy things pop up under wierd circumstances (radar, recombinant DNA...stuff like that). When I mentioned slower (i just checked) my old MicroNikkor is 3.5 to 22 and i meant slower relative a normal 1.# Just where does all that light go to when I shoot macro?

[Dan Fromm]

Emilio, buy a copy of Lefkowitz, Lester. 1979. The Manual of Close-Up Photography. Amphoto. Garden City, NY. 272 pp. ISBN 0-8174-2456-3 (hardbound) and 0-8174-2130-0 (softbound). And then read it.

[Bosaiya]

If I can ask, what system are you using?

It's based on Sinar components. Sinar standards and then a custom rail and bellows. Lately I've been experimenting with something more portable but I just haven't had the time to see it through.

[Bosaiya]

Just where does all that light go to when I shoot macro?

To the dark side, of course.

[Jiri Vasina]

.... Just where does all that light go to when I shoot macro?

Intensity of (any) radiation (and light rays are the same) decreases with the distance squared. The lens focused at 1:1 will be twice as far from the film as if focused at infinity. And only 1/4th of the light will fall on the film. So you have to have appropriately longer exposure to amend for the loss of light.

(a quick and dirty sketch is attached. What I wanted to show, the square #1 and the square #2 are of the same size...)

[Dan Fromm]

Jiri, if we spoon feed him, how will he ever learn to feed himself?

[Mike1234]

What's becoming of this place? Why are we allowing members to disrespect others like this without speaking out? The OP asked a simple question and we're making him feel like an idiot when those badgering folks are not even addressing his question. SHEESH!!

[emo supremo]

As a newcomer to LF I want to weigh in as being grateful when you gray beards box my ears and set me straight. What doesn't kill me makes me stronger and so I thank you for the e-spank when my thoughts stray towards silly. Don't mind the peppery opinions either. Far better than milk-toast and besides, being answered with silence is far worse to me.