Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
Oh, yes I was being careless; anyway, I prefer a longer telephoto for the macro work I do.
I've noticed diffraction tends to kick in around f/22 for the Leaf and f/16 for the Canon, but I didn't really mean to have a discussion comparing them. I'm really interested in comparing a macro and non-macro 210mm lens at macro distances.
I've never done the comparison you need. Where are you located? If you're in the right place you should be able to rent a 210 Schneider macro lens as recommended by Bob or a 210 Nikkor macro lens. Run your own trials and then you'll know which suits you better.
Another option is a process lens but opinions on whether they're sharp enough to use as taking lenses close up are very divided. I've shot a 55/8 Repro Claron against a number of other 50 mm or so macro lenses at magnifications above 1:1. The others included 40/4.5 Luminar, 45/4.5 Mikrotar, 50/3.5 Neupolar, 55/2.8 MicroNikkor (reversed), 63/4.5 Luminar, all lenses wide open and at one and two stops down. The Repro Claron didn't have a chance, at those magnifications diffraction is a killer and its maximum aperture was too small. I've also shot a 210/9 Konica Hexanon GR II against a 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS, both on a Nikon. At 1:2, the MicroNikkor's closest focusing distance on its own mount, the GR II was much better from f/9 to f/22.
Rodenstock made a 210mm Macro Sironar N lens. It is available on the used market in Copal 3 shutter and on Sinar DB board. In normal configuration, it is optimized for 1:3 to 1:1. Reversing the elements optimizes it for 1:1 to 3:1, which is macro distance. If I recall correctly, they offered a 300mm Macro in the same design, but have never seen one for sale.
Regular lenses are optimized for 1:10 or 1:20 and will do alright up to 1:1, but for real macro shooting there are real macro lenses.
Symmetrical process lenses optimized for 1:1 will also serve well since being symmetrical their corrections hold at all distances, but they open to f/9 and are thus harder to use under dim lighting. They have less usable coverage, although at close distance their coverage is considerable anyway.
There are some inexpensive fiber optic light, in the bay, that is good for very close lens to subject macro photography.
http://www.ebay.com/bhp/fiber-optic-illuminator
I got mine from there and use it as attach photography.
The Never Ending Journey - 365°
Rodenstock made two Makro lenses, the 210 and the 300 that worked as Ken described. The vast majority were supplied in Copal shutter and quite a few were also supplied in Prontor Professional 3 and Sinar shutters. They were used on all brands of view cameras and the least expensive way to buy one would be in Copal 3 unless you will use it on a Sinar with the shutter. If you buy one in Sinar DB and do not have the Sinar shutter then you will also need to buy a Copal 3 shutter for it plus a set of aperture scales.
The lenses did operate as Ken said, by reversing the elements as you get to 1:1 and beyond. At 1:1 you can leave the elements in either configuration.
These two lenses were discontinued by Rodenstock several years ago and wer replaced with the 120 and the 180mm Apo Macro Sironar lenses. These were optimized from 1:5 to 2:1 and the elements did not get reversed. These lenses have since been supplemented with the 120 Apo Macro Sironar Digital with a smaller circle, higher correction and a larger optimal f stop.
The 180 was in a 1 and both 120s are in a 0 shutter. The 180mm fully covered 810 at 1:1 and the 120 covered 810 at 2:1. The digital 120 Macro will not come close to covering 810.
The above lenses are far bettewr performers then a process lens when shooting 3-dimensional items at macro ranges. Especially if the detail is required up to the edges of the frame. Also the macro lenses will perform optimally over a range of f stops where the process lenses will be optimal at their design aperture of f 22 for lenses shorter then 600mm.
Bob, I agree with you except on two points.
The optimal aperture for a process lens depends on magnification. For example, the recommended copy format for the 250/9 Apo Ronar CL is 10" x 12" at 1:1. Rodenstock recommends using f/22 with that format and magnifications. This because performance at the edges of the image circle, corners of the image, is very important and the off-axis aberrations that are affected by relative aperture aren't under good enough control at larger apertures. So you're absolutely right in recommending that people who want to use a 240 Apo Ronar to copy 10 x 12 to 10 x 12 should shoot at f/22.
But if the OP is shooting tiny format -- 24 x 36 or 36 x 48 -- at magnifications around 1:1. For him the far off-axis aberrations that are important for the lens' intended use don't matter. All of the better grade of repro lenses that I've tested are worse centrally at f/22 than at f/16, some, dialyte type Apo Nikkors in particular, are worse centrally at f/16 than at f/11. So your advice isn't really correct for the OP.
The other point on which we differ is on how helpful field curvature is when shooting 3-D subjects. In principle, field curvature that conformed to the subject's lack of flatness would be helpful. In practice subjects come in many shapes, some irregular, and a lens' curvature of field is what it is. Lenses are designed, ideally, to have no field curvature, not all make it. The idea that process lenses, which usually have very little field curvature, are unsuited to shooting anything that isn't perfectly flat is a canard.
Cheers,
Dan
I'm surprised that there is very little information comparing macro to non-macro lenses for macro use. Even Rodenstock's own literature is not very informative. For example, this document: http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/Arch...7-42__8226.pdf has mtf curves for both the apo-sironar-S and Apo-Macro-Sironar but as far as I can tell, the two curves are very similar and they have no information about focus distance.
Dan,
In the good old days when catalog studios shot film a large department store in the mid west bought an old supermarket and converted it into what was then called a "Super Studio". Everything was shot on view cameras and they had ordered, through their dealer, everything that had an effect on color specially balanced and matched at the factory. Things like light boxes, flash equipment and from us, a large array of Apo Ronar lenses.
As they were getting fully into production the powers that be (art directors) were not all that happy with the jewelry shots, especially. They spread the jewelry out on the product tables in such a way that in one shot they could use multiple different high detail shots that were all taken at one time. This meant that they had product filling the frame, edge to edge, corner to corner and the diamond ring in the upper corner had to be just as sharp and crisp as the saphire ring in the bottom opposite corner and they both had to be as sharp, detailed and crisp as the pearl necklace in the center. And process lenses just could not do this. Neither could general purpose 1:10 and 1:20 corrected lenses. But Makro Sironar lenses had absolutely no problem handling the nuances of the fine jewelry detail and roundness.
I had to spend a few days with them as they were getting everything nailed down but it certainly was a learning experience for all of us. Studion managers, photographers, art directors, the dealer and me. Process lenses simply can not match the macro lenses from edge to edge and corner to corner when dealing with a 3 dimensional object. But they do a hell of a job when copying maps and documents!
In that document, focus distance is conveyed as "scale".
For the normal lens, the scale is 0.1x or 1/10 or 1:10. For the macro lens, the scale is 0.5x or 5/10 or 1:2
That the two curves are similar in spite of difference in scale is an argument in favor of the quality of the macro lens at close distance.
I think that you are misreading them. They are at different ratios. The MTF for the macro is at 0.5x and the fall off, distortion and color aberration curves are also, depending on the curve, at ratios of 0.5x or 0.2 to 2.0x.
The Apo Sironar S curves are at 0.1x for MTF and fall-off and color aberration and 0.03 to 0.2x for distortion.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks