Macro lens set

I have some macro lens heads in my collection and thought about to using it.

I´am using a Sinar camera system and the rear lens shutter as well but the shutter is not the best choice for macro photos because it produces vibrations when releasing and maybe your pictures are not 100% sharp.

For my lens set I used a Copal Press I shutter, made for the Polaroid MP-4 cameras, it has only the shutter blades but no aperture.
It is a self cocking shutter which makes it easier to use.

I adapted an Exakta female bayonet ring into the shutter and gave the lenses the male adapter bayonet.
This makes it better in handling and I can use extension rings for more extension.

In the moments the following lenses are in use:

Leitz Focotar 4.5/50mm
Steinheil 5.6/65mm
Leitz Summar 4.5/120mm
Zeiss S-Tessar 6.3/120mm
Rodenstock Apo Ronar 9/150mm

Now I started to test the lenses and I guess it will be interesting to see how it will perform.
Please have a look to my first sample, goto #560:
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...istance/page56

It looks like you are all set.
I'm not familiar with any of those lenses, so I can't comment on their macro abilities.
There are lots of great macro and process lenses that can be found at great prices -- that have a read thread of 40mm (#1 shutter). I recently picked up a Tominon 35mm f4.5-f32 process lens for $40. It covers 4x5". I put it on a Polaroid Prontor #1 shutter -- which lacks a diaphragm so you can find these for $20.

Attachment 222382

I have not had a problem with vibration in my macro work because I'm either using a flash or a LONG exposure.

Arri, I know that you know what you're doing so this reminder may be a little insulting. I give it for readers who don't know as much as you. Your shorter lenses won't cover 4x5 at low magnifications and are designed for taking/enlarging (these are equivalent) so they'll have to be reversed for best image quality.

The 50/4.5 Focotar is an enlarging lens for 35 mm still. Ctein (see http://ctein.com/booksmpl.htm) didn't think enough of it to include it in his list of recommended enlarging lenses but it is certainly worth trying out, especially since you have it. A relatively inexpensive superb alternative is a 55 mm MicroNikkor. I've tested my 55/2.8 AIS, reversed and at apertures no larger than f/4. For best image quality in the plane of best focus, f/4 is best.

I don't know what your Steinheil lens is, suspect it is for an oscilloscope camera. Like the Focotar it will have to be reversed for best results at magnifications that will cover 4x5.

The 120/4.5 Summar is an older lens intended for magnifications from 0.7x - 4x, shouldn't need to be reversed when working above 1:1. Believe it or not a 105/5.6 Comparon is a cost effective alternative. The cells are direct fits in a Copal #0. The best lens around that focal length that I've tested is a 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar. Better than my 100/6.3 Neupolar and a known good 100/6.3 Luminar. Klaus Schmidt doesn't agree with this assessment.

I'm not sure which S-Tessar you have, suspect that it is a lens for 6x6 intended to be used at magnifications below 1:1. Still worth trying out.

The 150/9 Apo Ronar is a fine lens, symmetrical so it doesn't have to be reversed when working above 1:1. It is, though, slow and this limits resolution in the plane of best focus.

For higher magnifications (>= 10x), a reversed 25/1.9 Cine Ektar II at f/2.8 is very good and quite cost effective.

Joe, I've tested all of the MP-4 Tominons except the 105/4.5. The 17/4 and 35/4.5 are very cost effective but the 35ers have variable quality. A good one is very good, not-so-good ones aren't. I wouldn't use any of the longer MP-4 Tominons. By the way, Polaroid's recommended magnifications for these lenses are actually the magnifications at which they'll cover 4x5, not the magnifications at which they perform best.

Given the difficulty of working at relatively high magnifications with LF and the associated DoF problems, I salute arri for trying. For me, given my goals, for immobile subjects stacked digital images seem the most cost effective approach. But we don't all have the same goals and preferences.

Thank you for your explanation Dan.

A few lenses are risky to use, exspecially the Focotar but it has a M39 mount an I already have had an Exakta/M39 ring, so I can use a lot of other enlarging lenses.
A 50mm lens covers 4x5" at ration 3:1 and maybe it will be better to reverse it.
The Steinheil is a 100% symmetrical four element dialyt lens, like the Apo Ronar, It will be interessting to use it.
The Summar is a coated lens and with good optical quality.

The S-Tessar is a very interesting lens, it has two identic threads, it can be use in the range of oo-1:3 in the same way like a standard Tessar, the f/6.3 versions are wide angle lenses with nearly 60° angle of view. I guess it covers the 9x12cm format at oo, 4x5" maybe but I want to check it.
When the lens should be use in the range between 1:3-3:1 the lens can be turned and it is a reversed Tessar. The lens has two aperture scales for it.
Rodenstock use the same way with their Apo Macro Sironar lenses.
My S-Tessar were made in the late 1930th but it is one of the very early T coated lenses.

I have three Tominon lenses in stock and I want to test it as well, the f/4.5 in 75, 105 and 135 focus length.

Also I want to test an Elgeet Colorstigmat 4.5/135mm. A very solid made lens, it has excellent optical quality in normal photographic work, maybe it will be great for macro as well when used in reversed position.

The dark winter days are the best time to test lenses and make adapters and othe "crasy" things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arri

Thank you for your explanation Dan.

A few lenses are risky to use, exspecially the Focotar but it has a M39 mount an I already have had an Exakta/M39 ring, so I can use a lot of other enlarging lenses.
A 50mm lens covers 4x5" at ration 3:1 and maybe it will be better to reverse it.
The Steinheil is a 100% symmetrical four element dialyt lens, like the Apo Ronar, It will be interessting to use it.
The Summar is a coated lens and with good optical quality.

The S-Tessar is a very interesting lens, it has two identic threads, it can be use in the range of oo-1:3 in the same way like a standard Tessar, the f/6.3 versions are wide angle lenses with nearly 60° angle of view. I guess it covers the 9x12cm format at oo, 4x5" maybe but I want to check it.
When the lens should be use in the range between 1:3-3:1 the lens can be turned and it is a reversed Tessar. The lens has two aperture scales for it.
Rodenstock use the same way with their Apo Macro Sironar lenses.
My S-Tessar were made in the late 1930th but it is one of the very early T coated lenses.

I have three Tominon lenses in stock and I want to test it as well, the f/4.5 in 75, 105 and 135 focus length.

Also I want to test an Elgeet Colorstigmat 4.5/135mm. A very solid made lens, it has excellent optical quality in normal photographic work, maybe it will be great for macro as well when used in reversed position.

The dark winter days are the best time to test lenses and make adapters and othe "crasy" things.

---

The Apo Macro Sironar 210 and 300 had one aperture scale. So not quite the same

Sample shot with the S-Tessar 6.3/120mm
Ration 2.3:1
Sheetfilm 4x5", Fomapan 100, Wehner Developer, Sinar F1, negative scan with Epson V700

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...a09439b9_h.jpg

I mean not the aperture scale but the lens were use in standard way up to ration 1:3
In the ration between 1:3-3:1 you have to change the front to the rear and the rear to the front.
It is necessary to do it in this way because of the shutter, when this lenses are in barrel mount it will be possible to turn the whole lens like the S-Tessar.

Her I used the Apo Ronar 9/150mm @/22
The S-Tessar in the picture before were used @f/11
All orthers are the same.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...5002c038_h.jpg

Had great luck back in the day with a reversed 55mm/3.5 Micro-Nikkor P for 4x5. Also with the set of Nikkors that came with a Nikon Multiphot which I'd rescued from being basically put into a dumpster! (later sold it...ugh!) The 120mm Nikkor from this set especially - if you can find one you just might love it!

Might be surprised at how little affect the perceived vibration (hold the shutter release ON for the entire duration of shutter time, if not there will be kick baco from the shutter, yet does not appear to increase vibration from the shutter) from the Sinar shutter has on LF macro images. Been there, done this using reverse mounted enlarger lenses and microscope objectives and micro-foto lenses like Zeiss Lumnar, Leitz Photar. Do set up an extra standard on the same camera rail as a table/platform for the macro subject if possible. This aids in camera/object to be imaged to move in sync reducing the effects of vibration. Mass, weight and set up stability is your friend here and longer exposures are another friend as the image recorded over extended exposure time on film tends to negate the effects of vibrations.

More significant problem is lighting. This is where fiber optic lighting can make a BIG difference. What is often needed is very high intensity in a very small area.



Bernice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arri

I´am using a Sinar camera system and the rear lens shutter as well but the shutter is not the best choice for macro photos because it produces vibrations when releasing and maybe your pictures are not 100% sharp.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Layton

Also with the set of Nikkors that came with a Nikon Multiphot which I'd rescued from being basically put into a dumpster! (later sold it...ugh!) The 120mm Nikkor from this set especially - if you can find one you just might love it!

---

I've heard stories of people resurrecting Multiphot systems from dumpsters... I was never that lucky. In the 1980s through the mid 1990s put together a Multiphot system very slowly part by part. You are right, the 12cm f/6.3 Macro-NIKKOR is an optic that is very easy to fall in love with. I also acquired a 12cm f/4.5 Leitz Wetzlar Summar which I found to be a very different animal. The NIKKOR exceeds the resolution of the Summar, but by not enough to be significant in practice. But the Summar seems to defy the laws of diffraction. For 3 dimensional objects it can be stopped down almost 2 stops more than the NIKKOR. Both lenses are truly gems for shooting 120 and 4x5. In the past years I have never seen a 12cm NIKKOR go for under 1K, and they are frequently sold for more than 1K. The 12cm Summar on the other hand I've seen offered up for sale for 200-300 dollars and go unsold. Last year I picked up an 8cm Summar in mint condition for a bit under 200 dollars. Another "gem" of a macro lens is the 65mm f/3.5 Leitz Elmar. Since it doesn't come with a focusing mount, it tends to be very undervalued and comes up every now and then at a bargain price. One newer black one was up for audition at a really bargain "Buy It Now" price, and I am still kicking myself for not acquiring it. It amazingly went unsold in the end. As far as I know the earlier chrome version is optically the same as the later black version. Although it was offered as a 35mm camera lens, I've known other photographers who have used it for 4x5 photomacrography and praised the optic.

Greg, other undervalued gems worth looking for are the 90, 120 and 165 CZJ Mikrotars and the 100/6.3 Reichert Neupolar, all f/6.3 reversed (cemented doublet faces the subject) Tessars and all very good.

More on these macro lenses:
http://www.savazzi.net/photography/p...crolenses5.htm

The index:
http://www.savazzi.net/photography/default.htm


Bernice

I see that two of my 4x5" macro lens are on this list -- the Minolta Rokkor-X Bellows Macro 100 mm f4, and the Tomioka Tominon 75 mm f4.5. The latter was very inexpensive, the former, not so much, but worth it. On the review of the Minolta it is noted that a lens shade would be a good addition. The lens, when sold new, was supplied with a removable lens shade. The Tomioka? Maybe, maybe not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xkaes

I see that two of my 4x5" macro lens are on this list -- the Minolta Rokkor-X Bellows Macro 100 mm f4, and the Tomioka Tominon 75 mm f4.5. The latter was very inexpensive, the former, not so much, but worth it. On the review of the Minolta it is noted that a lens shade would be a good addition. The lens, when sold new, was supplied with a removable lens shade. The Tomioka? Maybe, maybe not.

---

Joe, the Tominon was part of the Polaroid MP-4 system, was intended for copy stand work and nothing else. No shade offered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Fromm

Joe, the Tominon was part of the Polaroid MP-4 system, was intended for copy stand work and nothing else. No shade offered.

---

The 75mm Tominon is a Tessar design, a good lens for macro work.

I guess there are two version, the first is mounted in a shutter with a front and rear cell, this is a Tessar in the classical way, two single elements in the front and the cemented achromat in the rear.
This lens is made for ratio between oo-1:3

The other version were sold in a barrel mount with a thread of the size I shutter front, an M40x75mm.

This is a reversed Tessar and recommened for a ration 1:3-3:1

The Zeiss 25mm Luminar has a similar design and some other famous macro lenses as well.

The Tominon lenses are a good choice for small money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bernice Loui

More on these macro lenses:
http://www.savazzi.net/photography/p...crolenses5.htm

---

It just seemed unfortunate that this lens review simply states that the Minolta 100 f4 (there were actually two versions) would have better contrast if a lens shade were used -- when the second version of the 100mm f4 (the one tested) was always sold with a lens shade. Perhaps the reviewer was unaware of this. The lens needn't be recessed because it was designed to be used with a lens shade.

Anyway, I normally use a lens shade for macro and non-macro work. The main exceptions are when I want some glare, or with "microscope" lenses -- where the lens is millimeters from the subject.

I can't speak to there being two versions of the Tominon 75mm. If there are, I have the right one for my purposes. Mine is a barrel lens with a 40mm (#1) thread and f-stops to f32. I use it on a Prontor #1 shutter which lacks a diaphragm, so they are a perfect, VERY INEXPENSIVE, match. I also use it for smaller formats -- 35mm, digital, etc.

I’ve been experimenting a bit myself. The Schneider Componon-S 50/2.8, reversed, is supposed to be excellent for magnifications greater than 1:1. I’m adapting it to a Pentax 67 bellows for starters, using a P67-49mm reversing ring and a 43/49 step-down ring, the latter of which is on the way. (Now, if I could find an M39 female to 52mm female adapter, I could mount my Yashica slide copier attachment to it, adapt the bellows to my 645z, and have a high-quality slide duplicator. I’ve enquired with Grimes. But that’s off-topic.)

It would be relatively easy to adapt it to M39, if you could find an M39 reversing ring for your M39 setup. Was there ever an M39 reversing ring made? I’m sure S. K. Grimes could fab one up easily and relatively cheaply, given that it’s just threads.

Rick “who found the reversed Takumar 105 to me so-so, but who uses a reversed micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 and Nikon bellows on a Canon” Denney

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdenney

I’ve been experimenting a bit myself. The Schneider Componon-S 50/2.8, reversed, is supposed to be excellent for magnifications greater than 1:1. I’m adapting it to a Pentax 67 bellows for starters, using a P67-49mm reversing ring and a 43/49 step-down ring, the latter of which is on the way. (Now, if I could find an M39 female to 52mm female adapter, I could mount my Yashica slide copier attachment to it, adapt the bellows to my 645z, and have a high-quality slide duplicator. I’ve enquired with Grimes. But that’s off-topic.)

It would be relatively easy to adapt it to M39, if you could find an M39 reversing ring for your M39 setup. Was there ever an M39 reversing ring made? I’m sure S. K. Grimes could fab one up easily and relatively cheaply, given that it’s just threads.

Rick “who found the reversed Takumar 105 to me so-so, but who uses a reversed micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 and Nikon bellows on a Canon” Denney

---

Rodenstock made and we stocked 39mm reversing rings. I imagine Schneider did also and believe Heliopan also made them, might still offer them.

More about lenses for Polaroid macro and copy cameras.

Most of the lenses for the Polaroid MP-3 copy stand were Rodenstock Ysarons in barrel front mounted on Prontor Press shutters without diaphragms. I have no experience with any of these tessar type lenses or with the equivalent Ysarex taking lenses. There was another R'stock lens for the MP-3, the 35/4 Eurygon, also in barrel and intended to be front mounted on a press shutter with no diaphragm. I've had several of them. Although they're 6 element lenses, mine were worse than mediocre.

Polaroid Gel-Cams (CU-5, for example) and oscilloscope cameras (DS-34) used nearly the same range of Tominons as the MP-4 copy stand but in Copal Press shutters with diaphragms. Exceptions: the CU-5 17/4 is front-mounted, but is in a shorter barrel than the MP-4 version. The longest lens for the CU-4 is a 127/4.7 in shutter. The longest lens for the MP-4 is a 135/4.5 in barrel. I've had a couple of 127/4.7s. On 2x3 they are very good at all distances. I've had more than a couple of 135/4.5s. All worse than mediocre at all distances/magnifications. The shutters that Gel-Cam and 'scope camera Tominons are in don't conform to the Compur/Prontor/Copal specifications, their tubes are a little longer. And most have diaphragms that don't open as wide as the corresponding Compur/Prontor shutters.

As I mentioned above, the short (<= 50 mm) MP-4 Tominons are usable and very cost-effective. There are better lenses, but ... The longer ones I've tested are another matter entirely. There are much better lenses. I've always sold MP-4 Tominons that came to me as parts of bundles. I can't recommend -- sorry, Joe -- any of the longer ones. Photographers' standards, needs and budgets vary so I hesitate to advise anyone not to touch any of these gems, except for the 135. Run away from it.

The recommended ranges of magnification for the MP-4 Tominons have nothing to do with the lenses' optimal magnifications. They are simply and only the range of magnifications at which the lenses cover 4x5.

Here's a shot -- not mine -- taken with the Rodenstock 35mm f4 Eurygon:
Attachment 222489

Stacked and sharpened?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Fromm

Joe, the Tominon was part of the Polaroid MP-4 system, was intended for copy stand work and nothing else. No shade offered.

---

Anyone interested is seeing some results from Tominon lenses (not mine) should check out:

https://yashica.boards.net/thread/15...scrollTo=10083

I did some medical some micro surgical instrument photos for a text book. The lens I used was a 120mm Macro-Nikkor AM-ED, just a phenomenal lens. Covers 4x5 at 1:1 mag. I beleive it was a newer version of the 120 for the Multiphot.
Attachment 245793

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Monego

I did some medical some micro surgical instrument photos for a text book. The lens I used was a 120mm Macro-Nikkor AM-ED, just a phenomenal lens. Covers 4x5 at 1:1 mag. I beleive it was a newer version of the 120 for the Multiphot.
Attachment 245793

---

I have and use the 12cm Macro Nikkor that was developed for the Multiphot. This lens was optimized for flat field photography and magnifications from 1.2x - 4x. It is my understanding that the 120mm Macro-Nikkor AM-ED is not a newer version of the Multiphot lens but was optimized specifically for 1:1 photography. I doubt if you would be able to tell one optic from the other from 4x5 Chromes shot at 1:1.

I absolutely love my 150mm F9 Apo Ronars. So much so that own three of them. One on a Sinar Norma board, one on a Plaubel Makiflex board, and a third one (in original correct vintage Compur Shutter) as was offered in the Plaubel Junior line.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e301616c_b.jpgDigital Back Peco Jr 150mm F9 Apo Ronar by Nokton48, on Flickr

Plaubel Peco Junior 6.5x9cm view camera, with homemade Digital Back. Rodenstock 150mm F9 Apo Ronar at F11. A tiny GEM of a lens. Sony Nex C3 Body JBWelded to a Plaubel Peco Junior Lensboard with #00 hole, as a Poor Man's Digital Back. Works great and much fun, can max out camera movements with this. No need for Polaroid with this :)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...3e52a2c6_b.jpgSONY DSC by Nokton48, on Flickr

I just found this Yellow Filter and Lens Hood for the 150mm F9. Been wanting something for a while, this matchup is a perfect fit. I'm very pleased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg

I have and use the 12cm Macro Nikkor that was developed for the Multiphot. This lens was optimized for flat field photography and magnifications from 1.2x - 4x. It is my understanding that the 120mm Macro-Nikkor AM-ED is not a newer version of the Multiphot lens but was optimized specifically for 1:1 photography. I doubt if you would be able to tell one optic from the other from 4x5 Chromes shot at 1:1.

---

From what I have read, the latest 120 was optimized for 1:1 - 5:1, though I generally used it at 1:1. I agree that it would be hard to tell images from either lens apart. From this series I had a 4x6 ft enlargement made, the folks who did it for me said it was one of the sharpest images they had ever enlarged.