How and why to use close-up lenses on large format cameras

[xkaes]

There's an important update to:

www.subclub.org/fujinon/index.htm

Check it out!

[Ken Lee]

Invalid link ?

[xkaes]

Here we go again. It works for me. Try a search for "the world's most complete fujinon large format lens list"

Invalid link ?

[Dan Fromm]

The link works for me, Ken. This http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/close-up.htm should take you to the article.

Interesting, Xkaes. Why is it that LF photographers seem not to use close-up lenses? And why is it that manuals of closeup photography (except those for beginners with 35 mm cameras) rarely mention closeup lenses when discussing how to get the magnification? Getting away from closeup photography, why do none of us seem to use diopters to convert long lenses into shorter ones? I mean, short lenses with much coverage can be ungodly expensive, using a cheap diopter on a relatively inexpensive longer lens has great appeal.

Are we unaware of the possibilities or is the approach not very good?

[Corran]

Yep, here we go again - that site is still broken for some people (me included).

Dan, does coverage change w/ a diopter? If not, that would indeed be an interesting approach. What would happen with, say, an ultrawide lens, with an additional diopter??

I don't have any that are large enough for my lenses so I can't test.

[diversey]

It works for me. Thanks!

[xkaes]

There are limitations but much depends on your gear any purposes.

1. I have a 47mm XL and I can put a #1 CU on it and can barely focus to infinity because of my bellows limitation (my gear). Also, if you have all the lenses you need they will, of course provide sharper results, but for low powered CU lenses you might not notice any difference. On long lenses, tele lenses and wide-angles and higher power CU lenses you are more likely to notice it. But it a good way to stretch the gear that you have.

2. Most people don't have soft-focus lenses because they would not use it much. But CU lenses are a cheap alternative.

Yep, here we go again - that site is still broken for some people (me included).

Dan, does coverage change w/ a diopter? If not, that would indeed be an interesting approach. What would happen with, say, an ultrawide lens, with an additional diopter??

I don't have any that are large enough for my lenses so I can't test.

[Corran]

1. I have a 47mm XL and I can put a #1 CU on it and can barely focus to infinity because of my bellows limitation (my gear).

So, with the CU lens, does it have a wider FoV? I'm just curious here. I also have the 47XL.

If such a thing works reasonably well, I could see myself using this "trick" in certain situations on different formats where I don't have a wider lens.

[Drew Wiley]

With Fuji, it was the "A" series best engineered for close work, though they are superb performers at all distances, including infinity. But they did not offer a specialty LF macro lens like Nikon did. It just depends on what you mean by closeup. It you photographing diamond rings or the eyeball of a housefly, something
true "macro" or even "micro" might be called for. But "A" Fujis will do excellently at 1:3 and OK at 1:1.

[xkaes]

The coverage should change with a CU lens. Just as the coverage in front of the lens increases, the coverage behind it should as well. Whether you could use it would depend on how wide your shutter aperture is -- and perhaps other things.

Yep, here we go again - that site is still broken for some people (me included).

Dan, does coverage change w/ a diopter? If not, that would indeed be an interesting approach. What would happen with, say, an ultrawide lens, with an additional diopter??

I don't have any that are large enough for my lenses so I can't test.