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

[Bernice Loui]

Mis-understood...

The mention of Zeiss Luminar is to point out these have become rare, sought after by collectors and perform not better than a reverse mounted enlarger lens.
Zeiss Luminar's are a tessar design optimized a specific magnification range for each focal length of Luminar.

My answer to this question had it's reply.. read the post..

*The common modern plasmant are good enough for close up in this range, they do meet the requirements of most users. Even an modern symmetrical Bigon type wide angle lens works for reproduction ratios in this range with surprising good results.

*If better performance is desired, use an APO process lens, enlarging lens or Macro specific lens (most expensive option).

*Remember to factor in bellows factor due to the reproduction ratio.

*Stopping down past f22 - f32 is going to reduce resolution due to diffraction while trading off for DOF (apparent sharpness).


Bernice

Bernice, the longest Luminar is 100/6.3. A little shorter than the OP thinks he needs. Also quite expensive. AFAIK there are no lenses in the Luminar-Macro Nikkor-Photar class that are much longer. All are scarce and expensive, even now, most are for higher magnification than the OP wants. Answering a question is good, answering the question actually asked is usually better.

[mob81]

Dear All,
As always, plenty of information and great educational posts.
I'll probably try to find a true Macro Lens (120mm Or 180mm) to use with Sinar F1 "I have plenty of rail extensions that came with the kit" and will see if the Sinar F1 standard bellow will handle 1:3 to 1:1 if needed at maximum or I'll buy one more bellow and the required items for extra reach" Only if needed.

[Dan Fromm]

Bernice, I'm sorry, but there's only one tessar type Luminar, the 25/3.5. The 16/2.5 has 5 elements in 4 groups. The others are triplets. See http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_...nar/00_pag.htm

All are best wide open. At the magnifications all but the 100/6.3 are intended for there's no gain from stopping down, only loss. If you tested y'r Luminars stopped down you stacked the deck against them.

How did you test? I ask because I've tried out all five Luminars on USAF 1951 targets on glass, also a number of other high performance macro lenses and enlarging lenses. The only enlarging lens I tried that came close to the corresponding Luminar is a 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar, which actually tested as well as a known good 100/6.3 Luminar. Against that, Klaus Schmitt (visit his site macrolenses.de) has a 4"/5.6 EPR and regards it as "nothing special." I've also shot a number of ~ 100 mm enlarging lenses (Componar, Componon, Componon-S, El-Nikkor) out informally at 1:2 or so and at 1:1 against a printed USAF 1951 target against my 4"/5.6 Wolly. It won.

Oh, yes, my test shots were with the lens wide open, one stop down, and two stop down and at a range of magnifications. Short answer, don't stop the lenses down if the magnification is much above 1:1 and use them only in their recommended range of magnifications. Resolution diminishes rapidly on stopping down.

For a less comprehensive semi-formal test in which the Luminar wins, see http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photog...erlensespm.htm

Oh, and by the way, I also found that the fixed aperture 25/2.8 Summar supplied with the YELUU projection microscope attachment for some Prado projectors and the 25/1.9 Cine Ektar II, reversed and at f/2.8, are very competitive with the 25/3.5 Luminar (three examples). A 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS reversed and at f/4 is almost as good as a 63/4.5 Luminar wide open and is a very cost-effective alternative; the Luminar's big advantage is that it is slimmer.

The consensus in books on photomacrography (see, e.g., Brian Bracegirdle's Scientific Photomacrography) is that Luminars, Macro Nikkor and Photars are the best lenses for photomacrography. I'd add some CZJ Mikrotars (40/4.5, a triplet and 90/6.3, a reversed tessar) and Reichert's 100/6.3 Neupolar (also a reversed tessar) to that group.

Thing is, wonderful as these lenses are, none is appropriate for the OP's application. They're all too short and only the ~ 100 mm ones will cover 4x5 at the magnifications he wants to use. At the magnifications he wants, most if not all standard plasmats are worse than process lenses or the right enlarging lens. I directed him to an enlarging lens that's inexpensive and optimized, according to its maker, for the range of magnifications he wants. Most enlarging lenses are optimized for lower magnifications (= greater enlargement).

[IanG]

What about a 203mm f7.7 Ektar these are good sharp lenses at those close distances and also for normal work, excellent value for money as well. Personally I'd suggest a UK made Mount 370 type, come in Epsilon, Prontor SVS or late Compur all #0 shutters (depends on the age) or a late US version in a Compur 1.

Ian

[Ole Tjugen]

...
Thing is, wonderful as these lenses are, none is appropriate for the OP's application. They're all too short and only the ~ 100 mm ones will cover 4x5 at the magnifications he wants to use. At the magnifications he wants, most if not all standard plasmats are worse than process lenses or the right enlarging lens. I directed him to an enlarging lens that's inexpensive and optimized, according to its maker, for the range of magnifications he wants. Most enlarging lenses are optimized for lower magnifications (= greater enlargement).

Not quite. The old Schneider Symmar convertible lenses were optimised for 1:3 instead of 1:10 or 1:infinity. That was done as a compromise, in an attempt to make a lens that would work equally well at 1:1 as at infinity. Result is that they are great close-up lenses but slightly less than optimal for landscape and 1:1.

[Mark Sawyer]

I think the OP should try his enlarging lens on the camera, or just turn his regular camera lens around...

[Bruce Pottorff]

I have a never-used Nikkor-AM ED 120 5.6 for $400. Let me know.

[Dan Fromm]

Not quite. The old Schneider Symmar convertible lenses were optimised for 1:3 instead of 1:10 or 1:infinity. That was done as a compromise, in an attempt to make a lens that would work equally well at 1:1 as at infinity. Result is that they are great close-up lenses but slightly less than optimal for landscape and 1:1.

Interesting. Why do you believe this? That Schneider would optimize their best normal lens of the time for a lower magnification than the enlarging version of the same lens seems odd.

I went looking for convertible Symmar (plasmat type, not dagor type) brochures at http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm to check and got a rude surprise. Schneider's site has changed and I couldn't find the archive of old brochures there. If this is real and not my fault, what a blow!

I did find two convertible Symmar brochures that I'd downloaded years ago in my own files. My German is abysmal, so again the fault may be mine, but I couldn't find any reference to optimizations there.

Cheers,

Dan

[Oren Grad]

I went looking for convertible Symmar (plasmat type, not dagor type) brochures at http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm to check and got a rude surprise. Schneider's site has changed and I couldn't find the archive of old brochures there. If this is real and not my fault, what a blow!

Dan - by coincidence, a few moments ago I was trying to look up some different archive information at the Schneider site and made the same unhappy discovery.

BUT: feed the URL to the Wayback Machine at archive.org and you can still retrieve it. All hail Brewster Kahle!

[Ken Lee]

In the world of smaller formats, we read from time to time that some macro lenses are better all-around performers than their standard counterparts (even at infinity). Is that a fluke, a reflection of better quality control, or what ?

In a similar vein: if my Sinar-branded 210mm Macro Sironar is as sharp at infinity as my 240mm Fujinon A and 200mm Nikkor M, is that a fluke or a testament to Sinar's having "hand-picked" certain specimens, or what ?