Does a Schneider 180mm Macro have enough resolution if used with 120 films?

[neoro]

Hi all,

A recent development in E6 processing in singapore has ruled developing 4x5 E6 totally out. The one and only shop will potentially no longer develop 4x5 E6.

I have initially invested on a Chamonix 4x5 and was looking forward to get a Scheiner MACRO-SYMMAR HM 180/5.6 for my macro work.

Seeing that 4x5 E6 is no longer an option available to me and 4x5 c41 was never available to my knowledge in Singapore, I was thinking of using the reducing back to use 120 films.

The main purpose of using LF is to play with the various moments.

Could anyone share with me if this lenses or any other has the sufficient resolutions with used with 120 film? I am looking at doing 1:1 to 2:1 magnifications at times on the 6x6 where possible / required / inspired :)

I do have a Hasselblad V system, with a 120mm F4 macro + variable ext tube, however the option of movement is just too hard to resist.

[Lachlan 717]

This is going to depend on how large you want to print the final image.

[neoro]

Hi Lachlan,

At this moment, I am looking at prints around the size of A3 17 x 11" after some cropping if necessary


This is going to depend on how large you want to print the final image.

[Peter K]

Could anyone share with me if this lenses or any other has the sufficient resolutions with used with 120 film? I am looking at doing 1:1 to 2:1 magnifications at times on the 6x6 where possible / required / inspired :)
The resolution is more than sufficient also with 120 film. But the problem is the camera and RF-back: for 2:1 one needs 540mm bellows draw and the position of the film must be in the range of about +/- 150 micrometer compared with the ground-glass.

[dave_whatever]

What kind of apertures will you be shooting at? If you're looking a f/22 or thereabouts almost all lenses, LF, MF or otherwise are operating at the same diffraction limited values. So you'll probably get the same sharpness with a 4x5 lens on 120 as you will with a dedicated MF lens on 120.

[Peter K]

What kind of apertures will you be shooting at? If you're looking a f/22 or thereabouts almost all lenses, LF, MF or otherwise are operating at the same diffraction limited values.
The by Schneider recommend aperture for 4x5" at 2:1 is f/8.

[neoro]

very encouraging response!
thanks everyone...

Peter,
Does this mean that, the process of sliding in my 120 back after focusing with the ground glass would have to be done very carefully in order to have the +/- 150micrometer precision?


The resolution is more than sufficient also with 120 film. But the problem is the camera and RF-back: for 2:1 one needs 540mm bellows draw and the position of the film must be in the range of about +/- 150 micrometer compared with the ground-glass.

[Dan Fromm]

No, it means that your roll holder will have to hold the film very flat.

Peter, I found my handy DoF (and other things) calculator. According to it at 1:1 with the nominal aperture set to f/8 (effective = f/16), CoC 0.025 mm, and pupillary magnification = 1.0, depth of field (= depth of focus too, but only at 1:1) is 0.8 mm. Depth of field at 1:2 (= depth of focus at 2:1) is 2.4 mm. Film flatness shouldn't be an issue. How did you find the 150 microns you reported?

Original poster, as you should know since you use a Hasselblad, when working closeup the usual way of putting the plane of best focus where wanted is to adjust camera (or subject) position. We use movements in situations where this isn't possible, e.g., at low magnification. The big gain for you in going from a 120 mm lens to a 180 will be in working distance.

[Peter K]

Does this mean that, the process of sliding in my 120 back after focusing with the ground glass would have to be done very carefully in order to have the +/- 150micrometer precision?
In any case inserting the filmholder should be done very carefully because if the camera moves the image arerea and the focus moves too. This can be solved with rigid mounting the camera. But if the groundglass has not exactly the same position as later the film you can also use a glass-bottom as taking lens, specialy in this range of image scale.

Peter

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Only printing 11x17 you should have more than adequate sharpness. But this will also be true even if you use 135 format film.

As a rule of thumb the extremes of focal length and angles of view work better on smaller formats. Macro is one of these. 2:1 or or 2x or twice-life-size on film is the same image size regardless of format.Too, in the field, 2:1 on film gets to be ridiculously difficult on LF or even MF for the extensions involved. Yet for the same subject size, larger formats don't buy you greater sharpness-- there's typically a large resolution hit for the larger image circle.

Purposed 35mm macro lenses are probably the sharpest lenses that can be found, with most modern ones being capable of putting down >100 lp/mm on film. The Macro Planars for 'Blads are probably close to these numbers in MF. Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I'll be very surprised if anyone can point to tests that indicate the Macro Sironars etc come close to them.

What may also be the case is that 120 is more capable of being scanned and retaining such high resolutions because the base of the film is thinner and also has a less diffuse surface than sheet films (short of wet mounting for drum-scanning). 220 is even thinner and may resolve slightly better.)

[Tom Monego]

I did a lot of work photographing microsurgical instruments on LF. I had 35 but couldn't get the DOF I needed, movements did help a lot. I used a 120 APO-Macro Nikor first on a Linhof Technica, most successfully on a Calumet/Cambo. Most were shot at f16 or f22, I used both 4x5 and 2 1/4x 2 3/4 with 120 film in a Linhof Super Rollex back. Tried a Horseman back but it didn't keep film flat enough. Because of the stainless on the instruments I would polarize the light. Mag was generally 1:1 or 2:1. resolution was excellent, once for a trade show I had a print done 2.5 x 6ft. It was so good the owner of the lab delivered it to my studio asking if they could use it as a display. The accuracy was also my downfall, photographed one prototype and showed a manufacturing defect, the owner decided then to have artists draw the instruments. Was a good gig while it lasted.

Tom

[John Powers]

Several years ago I moved up in format from a Mamiya RZ67 to a Linhof Technikardan 45. I had not yet purchased a Jobo cpp-2 to process 4x5 negatives so I decided to use a Super Rollex 6x7 RF back. I did a series of twenty metallic spirals printed 9.5” x13” to fit a set of previously used mats and overmats. My lens was a 180mm Rodenstock Apo-Macro Sironar f5.6 MC f5.6-64 with Copal #1 shutter. I used f45 thinking this would give me the most depth of field with the movements. I am taking photography courses in my retirement and this series led to my first solo show. The professors teaching thought the resolution good enough to merit a show for the whole art school.

A thought to consider about composition is the size of the film relative to the size of the ground glass. It was a surprise to me at the time, and thus possibly useful for the OP. Though you will be focusing on a 4x5 screen you will need to determine what is covered by the RF format. Once I did this, I marked the corners of the 6x7 image on the screen grid with a Sharpy marker. All composition was based on this.

I have moved on to larger formats and am just about to sell this camera and kit of lenses. PM me if you might be interested in the 180mm macro.

John

[Lynn Jones]

No matter what you have heard, lenses since WWII are all sharp enough for all format sizes. The exception is that telephotos were not very good until high dispersion glasses or extra high dispersions glasses, those rated in Abbe numbers. These changes started to take place in the early to mid 1970's. In fact I've used lots of non telephoto lenses from well before WWII which I found to be excellent.

Some so-called phototechnical writers used to give us some hogwash about resolution for different formats but when you tested the various lenses, there was an incredible similarity from lens type to lens type. High quality Tessars, Gaussians, Artars, post WWII Plasmats, 100 degree super wides, etc. tended to have similar type qualities until refraction reared it ugly head. I won't give the names of the manufacturers who were known to have a bit less quality, especially some tessar types, some of us have been in the business for several decades and have had some unhappy experiences even with famous makers.

If anything, have suspicion regarding lenses for 35mm, some of them have been questionable.

Most camera lenses have been optimized at infinity unless they have been called macro, graphic arts, or super wide angle, or some other clue to these different criteria.

Sorry to be so wordy,

Lynn

[neoro]

thanks all for the great advice.
After setting some time off of my busy schedule, I have taken some test shots on a Chamonix 4x5 + Rodenstock 120mm Apo

HEre's the results shot on a 6x9 back. (will process the 4x5 when I'm back next week from a trip)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4134/4776291741_17236f6e65_b.jpg