PDA

View Full Version : Lens for studio use



Robot
18-Sep-2010, 08:46
Bit of a noob question here. I am interested in getting a new lens for use primarily in the studio doing still life on table top, 3/4 portraits and head shots. Will be shooting color neg and chrome. And ultimately printing in the range of 20x24s - 40x50s. I want something sharp like a bullet hole through a stab wound through a bee sting.

I have been looking at the big four mostly:
210mm F5.6 Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S
210mm F5.6 Rodenstock Sironar-N
210mm F5.6 Schneider APO Symmar
210mm F5.6 FUJINON-W
210mm F5.6 NIKKOR-W

Are any of these optimized for closer working distances? Should I be looking at something else? Is 210 optimal for this application? I have been using a 150mm but don't want to risk wide angle distortion (though I am not sure I am getting any distortion at the amount of extension I am using).
I have seen the Fujinon for the cheapest at $200 but I hear a lot of talk about the German lenses being the best. Any thought/suggestions?

Neal Chaves
18-Sep-2010, 12:28
If you can buy a nice 210mm Fujinon 5.6 for $200, that would serve you very well for the price. I have Fujinon lenses in 4X5 and 8X10 systems. They are all you could ever want in a lens. and I have two Nikkors as well and have used Schneider, Rodenstock, etc.

lenser
18-Sep-2010, 12:35
You might also include the Caltar 210. Made by Rodenstock and usually goes pretty low in price.

Ken Lee
18-Sep-2010, 17:18
You don't mention the size of your camera. Is it 4x5 ?

None of the lenses you mention, are optimized for close work. However, you can reverse a "normal" lens, and it should do better at close distance. You can save some money that way. I have used my 150 Sironar-S that way, and it works great. I presume that a W lens (wide coverage) may not match a more normal lens when used this way.

Remember that at 1:1 you need 2x the infinity bellows draw. For example, a 150mm lens at 1:1 requires 300mm bellows draw. Be sure not to get too long a lens if you don't have enough bellows draw.

Lenses which are corrected for close work, fall into 2 categories: process lenses, designed to shoot flat subjects, and macro lenses, designed to shoot 3-d subjects.

Most process lenses are f/9, which becomes f/18 at 1:1 (so to speak). They can be hard to focus for that reason, unless the light is bright. APO Ronar, APO Nikkor, G-Claron are of this type. Many are mounted in barrel, and thus have no shutter. If you have a Sinar camera, however, you can use a Sinar shutter instead. These are all very sharp lenses. Many people purchase these lenses at a low price, and have them mounted in a shutter. Often, the shutter + mounting costs much more than the lens. Process lenses also perform well at infinity when stopped down sufficiently.

Macro lenses include Macro Sironar, Macro Symmar, etc: In other words, they generally have the name Macro. They open wider than f/9 process lenses, and are easier to work with for that reason. They are corrected to work well even closer than 1:1, and have greater coverage, which facilitates view camera movements, which can be critical for table-top work.

I've used process lenses with great satisfaction, and currently use a 210mm Macro Sironar N: it's not too expensive, but opens to f/5.6 and is thus considerably easier to focus than f/9 process lenses. I have used it mainly with 5x7, but also with 4x5. On 4x5, it's a great length for portraits too. It too, is plenty sharp.

Oren Grad
18-Sep-2010, 17:44
I presume that a W lens (wide coverage) may not match a more normal lens when used this way.

FWIW, the Apo-Sironar(-W) is specified by Rodenstock as being intended primarily for studio work and accordingly as being optimized for 1:10 ("but with no noticeable loss at inifinity, either").

Robot
18-Sep-2010, 20:14
Sorry. I thought I was being very clear and I left out some of the essential bits of information. I am shooting 4x5, on a Toyo Field 45AX to be exact, with a maximum bellows draw of 321mm. I probably won't ever be shooting as close as 1:1. The closest I would ever go would probably something to the tune of:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3480/3717222640_029aa48f9c_z.jpg?zz=1

Ken Lee
19-Sep-2010, 08:56
If you're shooting product shots, then it's best to get a lens designed for product shots.

Otherwise, use a normal lens and turn it around.

Note: Most shutters are symmetrical, i.e., have the same inner diameter and thread pitch front and rear, but #1 shutters are not. So the cells of lenses in most shutters can be swapped front to rear. But not if the lens is in a #1 shutter.

Given ~300mm bellows draw, you don't want to be stretching your bellows out to the maximum all the time. The camera will be straining, so to speak. A 135mm or 150mm lens will give you "normal" perspective (no foreshortening), and since you won't get to 1:1, you'll have some room for comfort.

Cost aside, a 120mm Macro Sironar (https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=221) (or 180mm) or Macro Symmar (https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=252) (120 or 180mm) would be the way to go. Note the lengths: manufacturers offer these as appropriate for 4x5 cameras with moderate bellow draw. They know the story.

These lenses come up on eBay from time to time.

Dan Fromm
19-Sep-2010, 09:44
Ken, reversing a lens at magnifications less than 1:1 is a sin.

Robot
19-Sep-2010, 13:02
So a macro lens? Even though my typical magnification ratio will be in the range of 1:3 - 1:10?
Or process lens? Why are process lenses bad for 3D objects?

Ken Lee
19-Sep-2010, 13:05
Ken, reversing a lens at magnifications less than 1:1 is a sin.

Dan - This is one of your areas of expertise. Could you please elaborate ?

Meanwhile, here's a substantial article (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/macro.html) on our forum, entitled "Macro Lenses, Equipment, and Techniques".

aduncanson
19-Sep-2010, 13:22
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a process lens for 3D objects. Macro lenses are not optimized for 3D objects. (What would that mean? if optimized for concave subjects, what if the subject is convex?) A flat field is absolutely essential for a process lens, slightly less so for a macro lens. The designer may simply not emphasize flatness of field, quite so much, in trading off design choices for a macro lens and thereby deliver improvements in some other area. (Although from experience with an Artar, it would be hard to imagine what other area.)

A highly affordable option for the range you are looking for is an enlarging lens mounted in a shutter. One often sees a 135mm Componon S mounted in a shutter. Some say that a Comparon actually is better optimized for those modest reproduction ratios.

aduncanson
19-Sep-2010, 13:32
Dan - This is one of your areas of expertise. Could you please elaborate ?.

While I'm not Dan, I will suggest an explanation.

Imagine that a taking lens is optimized for 1:30 and you are shooting at 1:2. If you reverse the taking lens it is now optimized for 30:1.

1:30 is closer to 1:2 than is 30:1 so the reversed lens is operating further from its optimal magnification.

Dan Fromm
19-Sep-2010, 13:40
Ken, the idea's simple. A lens can be optimized for only one magnification (or, different words, pair of conjugates). Possible magnifications come down to 1:1 (life size) and everything else. In the case of everything else, the lens can be set up for < 1:1 (large subject, small image) or > 1:1 (small subject, large image). If we reverse a lens set up for < 1:1 and tben use it to shoot at < 1:1, we're not making good use of its optimizations.

I'm relieved that Ernest and I agree. But there are reversed Tessar type lenses (cemented doublet in front of the diaphragm, singlets behind) that were made for shooting at < 1:1. His discussion of MP-4 Tominons, some of which are reversed Tessars, isn't as clear as it could be.

Robot, that process lenses are designed to give good field flatness at their recommended working apertures is true. So are all taking lenses. Curvature of field is an aberration that lens designers usually try to eliminate. The big exception that I know of is special purpose lenses made for photographing images on a CRT. I gather that they're tuned to the CRT they're to be used with.

Robot, I also don't understand why people keep repeating the canard that one shouldn't use a process lens on 3-D subjects. I use process lenses -- Apo-Nikkors, Apo-Ronar (only 1), Apo-Saphirs, G-Clarons, GRIIs -- and lenses taken from repro cameras and am not aware that they prevent me from getting good results. My lousy technique is another matter, but it isn't the lenses' fault.

I've asked a number of the idiots, sorry, people who don't pay attention to what they say, who repeat this old-wives tale how to deal with subjects whose shape doesn't match the lens' surface (not a plane) of best focus. Not all curved surfaces are alike. I've yet to get an answer, except the news that I'm an idiot. This isn't news or a good answer, alas.

This discussion reminds me of the physicist joke whose punch line is "Assume a spherical perfectly elastic horse."

Armin Seeholzer
19-Sep-2010, 14:22
Hi

The 210mm F5.6 Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S is optimised up to 1:4 to infinity if I remember correctly I'm not at home so can't look in to the specs!
I used mine up to 1:2 with very good results!!!

Its deadly sharp, Armin

Ken Lee
19-Sep-2010, 16:44
Dan and Alan -

The following is a quote from the on-line Rodenstock "brochure" for their APO-Macro-Sironar (http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/en/main/products/lenses-for-analog-photography/apo-macro-sironar/). Are they exaggerating or misleading us ? I ask sincerely - They wouldn't be the first sales team to stretch or embellish the truth.

Apo-Macro-Sironar
"In the close-up range, at scales of around 1 : 1, the quality of lenses optimized for larger distances falls visibly from the usual standard of performance. Here the Apo-Macro-Sironar lenses come into their own for imaging scales of 1 : 5 and greater.

Incidentally, imaging scales of 1 : 5 or larger are required even in conventional table-top photography or studio photography (e.g. pack shots): for example, 1 : 3 at a film size of 4 x 5 in. means the full format image reproduction of an object of approximately 30 x 40 cm (12 x 15 in.) in size.

The Apo-Macro-Sironar offers excellent imaging quality in conjunction with the wide freedom of movement required for perspective corrections of large-format photography. Due to the image circle diameter increasing with the reproduction scale becoming larger, this lens allows even more freedom of movement than lenses designed for greater distances.

The Apo-Macro-Sironar provides exceptional results without any color fringes at a scale range from 1 : 5 to 2 : 1 without any need to adjust the lens individually. The focal lengths of 120 mm and 180 mm allow work with most cameras without any extra monorail extension even at a scale of 2 : 1."

Ken Lee
19-Sep-2010, 16:53
"I use process lenses -- Apo-Nikkors, Apo-Ronar (only 1), Apo-Saphirs, G-Clarons, GRIIs -- and lenses taken from repro cameras and am not aware that they prevent me from getting good results".

I have used APO-Nikkors for 3-d subjects (flowers), and have gotten fine results. I admit it. :)

Perhaps the admonition against using process lenses for 3-dimensional subjects, is just a canard, as you suggest. I have depended on the opinion of others in this area.

On the other hand, I have found that using a f/5.6 lens (like the 210mm Macro Sironar N and 150mm Sironar S), makes it much easier to see what's going on, compared to f/9. But like most of us, I'm not working in a studio. I have no lights: just a window and a piece of black cloth, propped up on some books. It's also nice to be able to shoot wider open, if we want a more shallow depth of field.

aduncanson
19-Sep-2010, 17:58
Ken,

I suspect that what they are saying reflects that the actual optimization for that lens is at some intermediate ratio near 1:1.6 (the geometric mean of the two limiting ratios) and that it performs "acceptably" from 1:5 to 2:1. That may be true, but for the reasons that Dan gave, I suspect that the performance beyond 1:1 would improve if the lens were reversed.

Alan

Robot
19-Sep-2010, 19:25
Thanks for everyone's help thus far. My trolling on ebay is getting to be a bit excessive though with all the different leads.

The article on Macro lenses was a good read. However, that leads me to believe that macro would not be ideal for my purposes as I don't think I will ever be shooting 1:1 or greater magnifications (small subject/large image). Rather, the subject size I am working with will always be reduced to film size. Ex. 9" head reduced to 2.5" on 4x5" film.

Does anyone have published charts comparing conjugate ratios for different lenses?

Ken Lee
19-Sep-2010, 19:35
Ken,

I suspect that what they are saying reflects that the actual optimization for that lens is at some intermediate ratio near 1:1.6 (the geometric mean of the two limiting ratios) and that it performs "acceptably" from 1:5 to 2:1. That may be true, but for the reasons that Dan gave, I suspect that the performance beyond 1:1 would improve if the lens were reversed.

Alan

Excellent - Thanks again !

Ken Lee
19-Sep-2010, 19:46
The article on Macro lenses was a good read. However, that leads me to believe that macro would not be ideal for my purposes as I don't think I will ever be shooting 1:1 or greater magnifications (small subject/large image). Rather, the subject size I am working with will always be reduced to film size. Ex. 9" head reduced to 2.5" on 4x5" film.

What distracted me, is that you asked for top performance at close range - "sharp like a bullet hole through a stab wound through a bee sting" - but want neither a macro, nor a strictly general-purpose "landscape" lens. You want to make 10x enlargements, too.

I'm not an expert, but I've never heard of lenses that are optimized for that "intermediate" distance. So it seems to me that any of the 210mm lenses you've mentioned should work fine.

Robot
19-Sep-2010, 20:07
Ken,

Ha. Sorry if my descriptive flourish lead to confusion. I really enjoyed the Macro article and am glad to have read it. I think you may have have hit the nail on the head with,
I'm not an expert, but I've never heard of lenses that are optimized for that "intermediate" distance.
Maybe that is my problem. I may simply be on a wild goose chase because intermediate optimization is exactly what I want.

aduncanson
19-Sep-2010, 22:45
I don't think I will ever be shooting 1:1 or greater magnifications (small subject/large image). Rather, the subject size I am working with will always be reduced to film size. Ex. 9" head reduced to 2.5" on 4x5" film.

Does anyone have published charts comparing conjugate ratios for different lenses?

2.5:9 = 1:3.6 or right in the middle of the range suitable for the Apo-Macro-Sironar (http://www.prograf.ru/rodenstock/largeformat_en.html#Apo-Macro-Sironar) that Ken referred to. Schneider makes similar claims for the Macro-Symmar HM (https://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogSubCategoryDisplay.aspx?CID=167).

Additional thoughts:
The Rodenstock looks to be optimized for smaller than 1:1 (your portrait situation) while the Schneider seems to be optimized for exactly 1:1.

Like Ken, I have a hard time believing that a general purpose taking lens would not be adequate for most purposes, particularly when considering the very high prices that these specialized lenses fetch.

Ken Lee
20-Sep-2010, 02:19
The 120 and 180 APO Macro Sironars are fairly rare, but there is a 180 available on eBay right now - at what looks like a very fair price.

There's also a 210 Macro Sironar N on eBay, for an even lower price.

Either of these would certainly meet your requirements - as well as any available LF lens could.

"Does anyone have published charts comparing conjugate ratios for different lenses"?

These charts are probably theoretical, but that aside, stopped down to f/16, these lenses are superb performers.

For an MTF chart of the APO Sironar, see http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Analog_Lenses_27-42__8226.pdf

For the Macro Symmar, see http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/datasheets/macro-symmar/macro-symmar_56_120_2.pdf

Dan Fromm
20-Sep-2010, 02:48
What distracted me, is that you asked for top performance at close range - "sharp like a bullet hole through a stab wound through a bee sting" - but want neither a macro, nor a strictly general-purpose "landscape" lens. You want to make 10x enlargements, too.

I'm not an expert, but I've never heard of lenses that are optimized for that "intermediate" distance. So it seems to me that any of the 210mm lenses you've mentioned should work fine.Enlarging lenses, Ken. Process lenses, too.

10x enlargements from film that will bear close scrutiny are a stretch, require meticulous technique.