Printable View
With the the need for serious bellows extension doing real macro work, 1:1 or closer, it occurred to me to wonder about a telephoto macro lens. Do they exist?
None of the modern macro lenses I know about are telephoto to my knowledge but it seems like something that would make sense but I don't know if there's a technical reason why this wouldn't work?
Short answer, ain't no such thing.
The general rule with LF closeup work is "the higher the magnification, the shorter the lens." And yes, there are situations where there's no escaping using a long lens with lots of extension.
Why not use the nikkor 120mm ed macro? I used mine on 8x10. If you're shooting macro on anything larger, you need your head checked:)
Would that be why Deardorff built the Studio 11x14 and offered up to 47" Artar for corrective photography, which I interpret as tilt and shift product Macro for high rez Depression era Sears catalogs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
A huge IC for huge corrections.
I'm still trying to understand that rule, especially for 8 x 10, because it would expand the viewpoint versus compressing viewpoint wouldn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
A 120 on 8x10 would look strange and "wide" vs a 210 on 8x10 (still seems like to me, on medium format I shoot 180mm for macro work) which an equivalent 450ish on 8x10 would require an extreme amount of bellows extension, so to me it would make sense to create a telephoto designed macro optic.
I guess I'm just not normal, I'm photographing body parts and don't want things to look wide that should not look wide. I want things compressed to be more flattering.
Angle of view changes dramatically at close up magnifications. The 120 is in no way a wide angle up close.
you're taking what you've heard or learned from shooting 35mm and applying it to sheet film and macro work. What Ed said. I've seen some excellent macro work shot on 8x10 with a 55mm micro nikkor.Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Here's bubble wrap (large 1" bubbles) on 8x10 film. Shot with the 120 nikkor.
Front movements with a 47" lens at 1:1? My, you have long arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
Trying it now with shorty Artar of only 30".Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
I wrote DD offered up to 47" which I don't need. Do I?
Hmm. 60" extension at 1:1. Hmm. Long, long arms. Are you by any chance of the Orangutan persuasion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
Re the 47", of course you need one when you need no less than 94" working distance (measured from ~ 10 mm in front of the diaphragm). Since you never know when you'll need that much working distance, you need a 47" Apo Artar. Good luck with your search.
I need a 1210/12.5 Apo-Nikkor, but not badly enough to pay the going rate for one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
Descendant.
Thanks Vinny,Quote:
Originally Posted by vinny
The content I'm shooting, well, I can't post it here, but there's a flattering aspect to body parts that isn't the same for bubble wrap, that said, I see your point and hear you now. I get that with macro and bellows you're effectively using more of the center of the lens and losing the edges and therefore not getting things quite as wide, BUT I still can't get my head around it entirely, but I'm trying ;)
I think I need to test, the shots with a non-macro were OK but not GREAT, and I think I just need to do more tests with what I have, I really can't afford to go buying a macro lens for the small amount of work I'll be doing with it, or at least I can't rationalize it.
But that still doesn't answer my main question which I guess I didn't phrase properly. WHY doesn't a telephoto macro lens exist? Wouldn't it make sense to have to use less bellows extension with such finite close detail? Less vibration from extended bellows, more easy to focus, etc etc.
So is there an optics reason? Or am I just smarter than lens designers to "figure out" what to me seems like an obvious advantage. (I know I'm not smarter I'm being sarcastic, but it seems pretty logical to me that this should exist).
Thanks.
You could always use plywood to make box sections to extend your macro capability. Like Andreas Feininger did.
Well, there are no telephoto lenses corrected for closeup for tiny format except a couple of mirror lenses sold as ultra-long working distance microscopes. Low coverage and very expensive. There's a hint.Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Another hint is that until very recently tele lenses in general were relatively poorly corrected.
Have you done the arithmetic? Remember that extension from the infinity position given magnification is (1 + m) * f. If you're going to shoot at 2:1 you still need 2f extension from the infinity position.
A tele lens will buy you less extension to the infinity position than an equivalent non-tele, but not as much as you think. I just looked at the 2002 Nikon LF lenses brochure. Their teles' flange-to-film distances at infinity range from 0.7f (500 mm) to 0.63f (1200 mm). They save no more than 0.37f relative to a lens of normal construction. I think that's less than you want.
I've told you once that the general rule is that the higher the magnification, the shorter the focal length used. There are good practical reasons for this, including short arms.
If you want to do macro work with relatively short extension either use a short lens on a 4x5 or larger camera or use a tiny format camera. There are short focal length macro lenses for 4x5 and larger cameras. They've been around for over a century. The best come from microscope manufacturers, not from Nikon's LF division, Schneider or Rodenstock.
Y'know, if you're dumb there's not much you can do about it. But you can try to reduce your ignorance.
The telephoto part only saves on the initial infinity focus bellows length.
Further bellows extension to Macro is measured relative to the true focal length, not the infinity focus bellows length.
This will result in loss of light and either even less depth of field, or prolonged shutters speeds (she may twitch), or you will need enough light to fry her parts.
Take a 360 tele with a Flange focal distance of 261 mm plus 360mm to get you 1:1 a total of 621 mm bellows
A regular 360 requires 720 mm of bellows, just 100mm more. Going to 2:1 the relative difference in bellows length is even less.
A 180 mm lens requires just 360 mm of bellows at 1:1 with a 2 stop exposure advantage.
Edit I took too long to type and Dan said it first, but note the extension is not related to the flange focal length vis a vis telephotos.
Thanks Dan and cowanw,
Dans said it before but in the math way, cowanw said it on the first two sentences that was summed up more simply, both ate valuable and together they clear up my misunderstanding.
Thanks everyone. I think I get it. Hope it helped someone else too.
I assume you are using the 120mm f/5.6 Macro Nikkor. If you like the results you are getting from this optic, you would absolutely love the the results you'd be getting from the 12cm Macro-NIKKOR f/6.3. I use one on a Multiphot to shoot 4x5. If I need to stop down a lot, I use a 120mm f/4.5 Leitz Summar which seems to exhibit less diffraction than the Nikkor at the same smaller apertures. Years ago met a photographer in Vermont who used the 120mm f/5.6 Macro Nikkor to do macro B&W work with his 11x14 in the field!!! He had only praise for the optic. Just thought I'd add in my 2 centsQuote:
Originally Posted by vinny
Greg
Let me see if I have anything to add.
Schneider marketed the 800mm Apo Tele Xenar to also be good in studio applications such as table top studio photographer. For instances when a longer more compact perspective is desired.
Macro is kind of a funny thing. The whole aperture selection versus depth of field versus focal length (format size) is more an issue with less returns for larger format sizes than infinity work. With a smaller format you have a less intense magnification ratio and you can use a shorter FL without it effecting the perspective as much. You are going to get more DOF using a 120 or 210 at 1:1 than a 300mm or 600mm. Many of the macro photographs that are shot on 8x10 are done have such issues in diffraction that then are only good for a 200 enlargement tops. Like Dan said many of the people who do high magnification macro work us shorter FL lenses for the higher magnification ratios. Reversed enlarger lenses are common for macro work, and the "printing" nikkor is said to be one of the top lenses out there for this kind of work. Some of the best macro work is focus stacked from many images.
Hmm. Focus stacking didn't become practical until digital photography became practical. So far not particularly useful for LF work.
What does 200 enlargement mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by 8x10 user
Using my 300mm EL-Nikkor will be really fun reversed...
And like it's been said, focused stacked isn't something I'm doing for printing.
But seriously I don't know if you mean 200%? As in an 8x10 made to be 16x20? Or something else? Probably looking at 20x24 prints, so you're saying a 6x7 negative on 120 would be sharper and more defined at 20x24 than an 8x10 of the same image?
Sorry, I'm fighting off a cold. The amount should be 200%. I was looking at some work from an older commercial photographer and most of the images were sharp until louped. He stopped down so far for DOF that the images were only useful for small print, but at that size they were amazing.
The el nikkor 300 would be perfect if you want to take photos of something around .025x8x10 in with a camera that uses film that is the size of big print.
It all really depends on your magnification ratio. Reversed enlarger lenses at good for very high magnifications. For 1:1 a macro or process should do fine. Fujinon A's should be good for close up (1:1) and is the C a dialyte or tessar? Either one shouldn't be bad. If you run out of bellows then use a shorter lens. If you want to take a photo of something that is about the size of an 35mm film frame with your 8x10 then use a lens that was designed to enlarge 35mm... If the subject is about the size of medium format then use a medium format lens enlarging lens. Infact it doesn't even have to be any enlarging lens. You can reverse an taking lens to reverse its optimization ratio. A 180mm Apo Sironar S in reverse might work well.
I'm just curious but why would you rule out medium format when there are some stellar macro optics for it? I have both a 120mm Rodenstock Macro Sironar for 4x5 and a Hasselblad 120mm Macro for that system and the latter is just so easy to work with, incredible image quality at large sizes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
I use both setups for independent reasons but love the results equally.
Hey Dan, I think when he said "tiny format" he was talking about anything below 4 x 5 which would include medium format.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodachrome25
Fair question. I didn't rule out MF, on this forum tiny format includes everything under 4x5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodachrome25
Most of my macro work has been done with mobile subjects. Flowers, insects, live fish in aquaria, reptiles, ... Re the flowers, if they're not nailed down the slightest breeze will move the plane of best focus. For this work an SLR with a lens that stops itself down to taking aperture when the exposure is taken is ideal. With these subjects getting good results with a press or view camera is very much hit or miss, mainly miss. Static subjects are another matter entirely.
Lol, so now medium format is tiny now eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
I just don't understand this group sometimes....
It's not this group, at one time books on Miniature cameras included 120 cameras, TLRs as well as folders. Medium formats were considered to be quarter plate, half plate, whole (full) plate etc and their metric equivalents, (and the US 7x5). 10x8 was the border line and large formats were 15x12 upwards (14x11 in the US).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodachrome25
Ian
I'd far rather do macro with a 4x5 monorail than any kind of "subminiature" medium format system (heh, heh) or 35mm camera. You get a lot more control, plus
a much richer chrome or neg to print from. I even do it with 8x10. Around here it's constantly windy most of the year, but you just get used to timing the gusts.
I know another member (who lived through it) has mentioned that 4x5 was considered medium format when he started and 5x7 was the intro/borderline large format size. It's interesting to hear that at some point 8x10 was even borderline lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanG
Strangest group on the photo planet, this one....
Telephoto designs are intended to reduce the overall length of the lens relative to the effective focal length. The trade off is reduced coverage which most of us would not tolerate. The only telephotos for large format that I recall were Wollensaks for 4x5 press cameras.
Perspective is a function of angle of view which is a function of effective focal length and format size. Thus, short focal lengths at high magnifications do not produce wide angle perspective like wide angle lenses do at low magnifications.
Lenses designed for macro work will do the best job though other factors may reduce sharpness. The OP mentioned body parts which tend to move with respiration, circulation and other stimuli.
How could you not know the Tele Artons or the Tele Xenars? Or the Apo Tele lenses that Schneider made or the Tele lenses from Nikon and Rodenstock and Fuji? They were all for large format.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Eads
You take no notice, it's your own perception that matters :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Kodachrome25
Ian
And the excellent early Ross and Dallmeyer telephoto lenses that preceded them, plus of course the CZJ Tele-Tessars :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bob Salomon
The 360mm f5.5 Tele-Xenar was sold for 35mm & 120 in a few focusing mounts as well as in a barrel or a Compound shutter for LF 5x4 & 7x5.
Ian
Won't tele lenses have problems with LF movements also?
Something about back focus IC shifting...
It's not very often you want or need movements with a telephoto.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
Ian
With macro it won't matter as the IC will be much bigger anyway.
I think Andy was just trying to be helpful.
He's been a member since 2001, so it's possible he stopped buying or looking at new lenses decades ago, but yes there are indeed modern ultra sharp 8x10 telephoto lenses from 600mm to 1200mm (I believe the 1200 only needs something like 750mm bellows? Pretty amazing)
EDIT: looked it up, 755mm bellows on that 1200mm
600mm T-ED ftf = 409.2mm (16.1")
800mm T-ED ftf = 527.4mm (20.8")
1200mm T-ED ftf = 755.7mm (29.8")
The serious difference between the bellows extension on the 1200mm is what made me think that it was possible to use macro lens with me seriously beneficial back focus distance.
I put a cheap 90mm enlarging lens on a Sinar board with gaffer's tape to make ??4x enlargement of a coin once. Said lens does not remotely cover 4x5 at infinity but I had the eagle's wing tips from the silver dollar near the edges of the frame and only needed 1 of the two bellows sets iirc. I find this this sort of thing a lot of fun even with kludgy equipment (not the Sinar, but the lights etc, the Sinar is a great piece of gear). Maybe I missed something but doesn't stone just need a lot of bellows on his 8x10?
Stone wants what he wants when he wants it where he wants it how he wants it. In other words, he wants miracles.
Dan, I was asking a question on WHY they didn't ever make a telephoto macro, looking for info and understanding, that's all.
I've already come to the conclusion that because of the limitations of LF, much of my macro work needs to be done on MF, the RZ67 with a 180mm (I have the 175 or 150 or whatever the macro lens is but it needs serious CLA before I use it) and 2 extension tubes shooting PanF+ and it blows 4x5 and 8x10 shots with TMY-2 and Acros100 out of the water in terms of detail and sharpness. I haven't done extensive side by side tests yet, and none of the lenses (MF or LF) are actual Macro lenses, but I will test the MF macro at some point, and if someone wants to loan me a LF macro to test, I would when I have time, and then might consider buying my own, but from what I have shot, it's just better with MF, I use studio lighting and breathing etc isn't an issue this is all strobed at speeds much faster than the lens can even fire at so that doesn't affect anything.
Anyway again, it was just me learning and understanding. Not me being demanding (although sometimes I am, and Dan is right, there are times I want a certain thing, and others often chime in with "why don't you do this or do that" and the simple answer is, because I want to do something else, but I'm not opposed to learning, it's in deciphering when someone actually knows what they are talking about from similar experience, vs those who are well read but have no practical experience in the matter at hand. On Forums it's a lot of the latter and that's why sometimes I hold fast to my own ideas until I can accept a truth to be real from a real experienced source.
But again, this thread is for information gathering as a curiosity because I'm not familiar with all lenses that exist obviously :)
Regarding the Nikkor teles I sought to use them to photograph Arctic birds at the nest, so for closeup not macro. Nikon rep did some inquiry with Nikon tech group and their guidance was to use the W or M series for this work as teles would not perform well at 1:10 or higher mags. PDM
the macro RZ lens is the 140. definitely a better choice than the 180 + tubes.
Better choice in what way?Quote:
Originally Posted by EdSawyer
Just curious what you mean, I've been completely satisfied with all the images I shot with the 180, is absolutely no discernible CA, everything in focus is super sharp.
Or do you just mean that you get a little bit more depth because of the shorter focal length?
Momentary memory lapse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Salomon
I don't know what's really "better" but I have the 140 and a set of extension tubes for the RB67 and it's really good. I had the 180 as well and liked the results with the 140 more. But that's just me.