Do I need macro lens for 3:1 or similar ratio?

[mob81]

Or will a 210mm f5.6 should deliver the goods as I'm planing to do with 6x9 back an occasionally 4x5.

I'm looking for 3:1 and extremely rare 2:1 mostly with medium format back "flowers under controlled environment"

Regards,
Mohammed

[mob81]

Sorry, I mean 1:3 and 1:2!!

[Brian C. Miller]

For 1:3 or 1:2, most lenses will be absolutely fine. Yes, the macro lenses are optimized for this work, but you only need one if degradation is evident. To find out, put a shiny coin, like a nickel or a dime, on a piece of black paper. Rack out your camera to maximum magnification, and photograph it with color film. Then look at the image. If you see distortion of red-blue-green not lining up, then you need a different lens. If you do a web search for macro photography, there are example photos of what I'm referencing. Another trick is to turn your lens around, and you can also use a macro diopter filter.

[Dan Fromm]

Good luck. I do much what you do, often have difficulties with wind. The subject moves between the time I've focused and composed and the time I take the shot. Your controlled environment will have to be very well controlled.

To answer y'r question, a 210/5.6 taking lens will pass light and form an image, even at 1:2. Try a couple of shots and see if you can live with the image quality. You're a better judge of what's good enough for you than anyone else.

If you don't like what y'r 210 does, an enlarging lens optimized for small enlargements should do fairly well for you. Schneider has said that for enlargements between 2x and 6x (taking at 1:2 to 1:6) a Comparon (enlarging Xenar) will do better than a Componon (enlarging Symmar) and Comparons are relatively inexpensive. I have lenses that are better closeup than my 105 and 150 Comparons but I've tried my Comparons and if I had to I could stand using them as taking lenses around 1:3 to 1:2. My little Comparons' cells are direct fits in a #0. There's a 210 Comparon, I'm not sure which shutter its cells go into.

An alternative, possibly more expensive, would be a 150 or 180 or 210 process lens. To give you an idea of what can be done, I have a 210/9 Konica Hexanon GR II and a 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS (35 mm lens, not LF). There's no comparison. The Koni is better at 1:2, and 1:10 and at infinity at f/11, f/16 and f/22. Putting a Koni in shutter will be expensive. If you must use a 210, 210 G-Clarons' and some 210 Apo Ronars have cells that are direct fits in a #1.

Finally, if you're going to be shooting mainly 6x9, think hard about whether you need a lens as long as 210 mm. I've been quite happy shooting flowers on 6x9 with a 100.

Brian, I'm sorry that you're repeated the canard that lenses should be reversed for closeup work. Taking lenses are optimized for a large subject in front of the lens and a small negative behind the lens. Big front, small behind. When shooting above 1:1, the subject is small, the negative large. Small front, big behind. Lenses that aren't perfectly symmetrical should be reversed when shooting above 1:1, don't need to be reversed at lower magnifications. In fact, they loose if they're reversed at lower magnifications.

[Ken Lee]

To add briefly to Dan's comments: some of the real macro lenses for Large Format are plasmat designs optimized for close work. All things being equal they will have wider coverage than a process lens of equivalent length... but on 6x9 a Large Format lens will give you more coverage than you need - especially a 210mm lens. So another vote for a process or enlarger lens.

[Brian C. Miller]

Brian, I'm sorry that you're repeated the canard that lenses should be reversed for closeup work.

"Should?" Ah, no, I didn't write that. I wrote "trick." I wrote that the lens the OP wants to use needs to be tested for the purpose at hand. For my own macro photography, when I reversed a lens I don't remember that 1:anything was a possibility. The lens' magnification dictated the camera position.

[drew.saunders]

Or will a 210mm f5.6 should deliver the goods as I'm planing to do with 6x9 back an occasionally 4x5.

It will work just fine, but you might want a shorter lens so you don't have to rack your bellows out so far. For 4x5, some popular macro focal lengths are 120mm and 180mm, much shorter than similar macro lenses for smaller formats.

I'm looking for 3:1 and extremely rare 2:1 mostly with medium format back "flowers under controlled environment"

Regards,
Mohammed

Controlled environment like this?



That's my indoor "rainy day" macro setup. I'm using cheap "construction felt" from the local Jo-Ann fabrics, it was something like $5/yard or less, so I bought 2 yard (so 6x6') pieces in white, grey and black. I mostly use the black now.

Here's one with a proper macro lens, a 120/4 on a Mamiya 645E:



And here's one with a c. 1952 Zeiss Tessar, which is very far removed from a "proper" macro lens:



If you click on either and select "view all sizes" to see the larger size, you might be able to tell that the real macro lens is sharper at the edges. The question is, what's important to you? Are you looking for the best edge-to-edge resolution and accurate color? Then you'll want a real macro or process lens. If you're shooting black and white and/or prefer that the images might be a pinch soft at the edges, then use a regular lens racked out.

By the way, at $10 each, these goose-neck LED desk lamps from Ikea are perfect for table-top macro photography:
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/20169658/

Drew

[Drew Wiley]

If it was for 4x5 film, I'd recommend a 210 G-Claron. Close-range corrected and very compact. But that's quite a narrow angle
of view on 6x9. The next thing shorter that comes to mind is the 180A Fujinon - another small close-range lens, then below
that the 150 G-Claron. All of these are excellent at inifinity too.

[8x10 user]

Up until about 6 months ago I was using a Nikon D2X with the latest Nikon macro lens for all of digital work. Then I upgraded to an older 22mp medium format digital system.... The shots that I am getting with just a regular Sironar Digital in macro appear to surpass the dedicated Nikon Macro lens in quality. I actually saw chromatic abberation on the shots with the Nikon, but none with the Rodenstock. Now I have a Macro digital lens on its way

I also tried doing some extreme macro shots with a reversed 80mm Digitar, but the images were not very good when viewed at full resolution.

[Drew Wiley]

The problem with a process lens on a field camera with a 6x9 back is balancing or supporting the extra wt, esp if it must be
fitted into a larger shutter. A true macro lens is more for photographing something like diamond rings. The tabletop-corrected
plastmats like a G-Claron or Fuji A will fill the intermediate niche better, esp if you also want something lightwt and equally
suitable for general purpose and inifinity shooting. I would vastly prefer to shoot closeups on full-sized 4x5 because focus
is so much easier than on 6x9. Everything gets fussier with a rollfilm back.