Questions about Macro with non-macro lens

[Larry Gebhardt]

What I surmise is simply that I'm limited by my camera spelling, and that anything more than 1 to 1 isn't really going to happen unless I use a lens that is going to add some really bad distortion like a 90mm.

And for the subject matter at hand, which is normally not eyes, distortion would be a really bad thing.

A 90mm lens won't have much distortion, but probably won't be optimized for macro magnifications. It will also have a very short working distance. This short working distance will create a foreshortening effect where objects closer to the lens appear larger. This is the same as when a short lens is used for portraits. But at macro magnifications your depth of field is very small, so you may not notice it (things in the back will be very out of focus).

I use a 120mm Nikon AM and a 210mm Macro Sironar on a Canham MQC (with both front and rear focus). But I also have had good luck using my Chamonix (front focus only) with a macro focus rail. This lets you move the whole camera to focus (set the rear distance roughly right first). With the shorter lens you are really close to the subject for 1:1. Given you implied subject matter that could be awkward, so a longer lens would be better, assuming you have the bellows for it.

[Bob Salomon]

You would probably get the best results with a 120mm Apo Macro Sironar. This lens is corrected for 1:5 to 5:1 but would still need more extension then you probably have. But this lens was made for what you are trying to do. Close-up photography of 3-dimensional objects.

[Tin Can]

I have been meaning to try the macro eye shot. This is almost 4-1 using Sironar-N 180mm f5.6 lens. It's Plasticca's fake left eye, and the whole body is life size. Lens diaphragm to eye 8", diaphragm to GG 45". +/-

I used a heck of a lot of light, no human could take this much, this close. About 1600 watts of LED. 20 seconds at f22. BR/A 8x10 X-Ray, single sided.

Even with all this light, focus was difficult, I had 3 inches of bellows to choose where to put focus. It is hard to get everything lined up. I fooled with a couple lenses and was getting frustrated when this image kinda hove into view.

I would love to shoot a real eye like this, but that may be asking a lot. I would have to use flash, and I still need to focus...

Darn Flickr has changed and now I can't attach images like before. bah, cancel them too I wanted to this to pop full size. Oh well.

[StoneNYC]

You would probably get the best results with a 120mm Apo Macro Sironar. This lens is corrected for 1:5 to 5:1 but would still need more extension then you probably have. But this lens was made for what you are trying to do. Close-up photography of 3-dimensional objects.

Thanks.

I think I will have to wait till I upgrade to the 8x10 and use my 4x5 reducing back to have enough extension to accomplish this.

It's been very... Eye opening...

[Bernice Loui]

There are times when using a smaller film size or image recording device works better than 4x5 or larger film size simply works better. This appears to be one.

Macro using a 4x5 or larger film size view camera for images greater than life size aka 1:1 is less than deal due to inherent problems with optics, film speed requirements, lighting, mechanical stability of the system, and more.

There are speciality microscopes designed and built specifically to address the problems of macro image recording which are far better suited to solve image recording problems like this.. A view camera is far from the ideal tool to create image of this type.

Most symmetrical view camera lenses work OK to life size or 1:1, but the other problems of DOF, lighting, bellows draw, mechanical stability of the set up and more remain.


Bernice

[pasiasty]

Problems with macro imaging are more or less the same for all film/sensor formats: for 1:1 you have the same lighting drop on 35 as on 8x10; in both cases you may need a specialised lens. It is however a difference of object size in both cases. So yes, LF is quite inconvenient for taking pictures of ladybugs, but might by good for a vase with a flower (say 50cm, 20", so you need some 1:2 on 8x10) - this is "macro" in LF world.

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks.

I think I will have to wait till I upgrade to the 8x10 and use my 4x5 reducing back to have enough extension to accomplish this.

It's been very... Eye opening...

This 120 macro will also cover 810.

[StoneNYC]

This 120 macro will also cover 810.

The 210 macro seems like a better choice, the 120mm is too wide.

[Bob Salomon]

The 180mm macro also covers 810. The 120 and the 180 replaced the older 210 and 300 Macro Sironars. With the 210 and 300 you had to switch the front and rear groups depending on which side of 1:1 you were on. With the 120 and 180 you don't swaitch the groups. The 210 and 300 werew optimized for 1:3 to 3:1. The 120 and 180 are optimized for 1:5 to 5:1. And, of course, the shorter ones require much less extension to reach a given magnification.

Also, for anyone considering new ones, the 120 and 180 Apo Macro Sironar lenses are no longer being made so availability is what is available from distributors like us or in our dealer's inventories.

The only currently manufactured analog lenses from Rodenstock are the 135, 150 and 210mm Apo Sironar-S lenses.

[Tin Can]

I don't see any response to my actual 4 to 1 macro image using a normal lens. I think the DOF is remarkable and detail is pretty good. The fake eye is life size and has depth. Even floating hair is visible in my shot and the paint grain near the eye corner is very well defined. I focused on the white paint drip.

Here's a couple set up shots to show the actual eye depth.