What lens for 2x - 3x macro photography for my Lotus 14x17?

[Marco Annaratone]

Hi all,
I would like to start some serious work on this kind of photography, i.e., macro still life in the range 2x - 4x life size with my 14x17 Lotus camera. I would shoot of course black and white and contact print. In spite of having far too many lenses I am not sure I have a lens who can perform optimally for this kind of photography. Considering that this would be a long-term commitment it makes sense to look for a dedicated lens.

All this blah blah could be disposed very quickly if you tell me that the an apo-ronar 360mm (not CL but relatively modern) is what I need, as I do have this lens (and in shutter). Its coverage is not the issue (at 2x it covers 14x17, no problem), IQ is the issue. Otherwise, what would you recommend? The max bellows extension of my Lotus is about 1200mm, give or take.

THANKS!!!!!

[LabRat]

14X17!?!! Not sure, but at that amount of bellows extension, a much shorter lens with very good coverage should cover up close...

FWIW, I have been doing much close-up work on 4X5 recently (after having done a great deal of C/U work on 35mm) and let's say I'm shooting a 35mm 1:1 with a 135mm lens C/U and tightly cropped to the small subject... Then I try the same shot with a 4X5 with the eqv FL and I run out of bellows quickly... So, if I switch to let's say a 135mm, it will focus nearly as close, but the FOV is much wider, and it seems it's not like the close-up that one gets with a smaller format, and if you can can get the extension, the DOF will get mighty thin like a micro photograph... And this will get worse with larger and larger formats... And the set-up will be tricky keeping everything still...

My point??? Maybe ULF might not be the "tool-for-the-job" for (very) C/U's unless you have the extension, and are shooting objects with a flat, single focal/distance plane...

Test it... Try some enlarger lenses/FL's first or WF smaller format (cheaper) lenses first, before plunking down serious cash...

Steve K

[Tin Can]

You need to conduct your own experments with what you already have.

Since you have only 1200 mm bellows and need big cone of light, with a 600 mm lens you will get only 1 to 1 macro and need shorter lenses to move to bigger images on 14x17.

I do this all the time with normal lenses on 11x14" with 75" of bellows.

[LabRat]

Sorry if I'm a little tired right now, and not explaining this correctly/clearly, but what I mean is what will you expect the FOV to be at a close up range you desire??? What is your desired subject size??? For instance, at 1:1 your FOV subject area will be 14X17... (I hope your thinking about macro will not be to shoot a single flower bud, or something else very small...)

And maybe I'm confused if you mean your 14X17 format is in inches or mm... (My bad if it's in metric!!!) I'm tired, now...

What do you want to shoot???

Steve K

[Dan Fromm]

Marco, Apo-Ronars are very good lenses in general and in particular at the magnifications you want to use. According to Rodenstock's spec sheets the 360 will cover 14x17 with minimal movements at 2x.

You're contact printing, so will want to shoot at an effective aperture no smaller than ~ f/200.

Take a couple of test shots, see whether the results please.

[Marco Annaratone]

Thanks Dan!

I do not understand why this thread has been moved from ULF to the "lenses" section. My camera is a 14" x 17" camera, it is as ULF as it gets, the question was ULF-specific and I believe may be of interest only to those shooting with ULF cameras.

Anyway, let me then restate the question in crisper terms.

I have a 360mm APO-Ronar, which like Dan said has been designed for 1:1, but I have no idea whether it gets all mushy at 3x or 4x.

Question 1: does anybody know if a Nikon AM 210mm, a Schneider Macro-Symmar HM 180mm, or a Rodenstock Apo-Macro Sironar 180mm provide at 2x-4x such a significant improvement over the Apo-Ronars (or other top-notch dialyte) to justify buying one of these (they ain't cheap)?

Question 2 (almost comical, but I want to ask): does anybody ever used the Luminar/Photar class of lenses on an 8"x10" or (wow) larger camera? They are indeed optimized for the 1x-5x range, but the lens-subject distance is probably measured in microns, I don't know

Incidentally, I know I will need a lot - I mean A LOT - of light, and I am working on it.

[Tin Can]

Sorry Marco. I should have assumed a Lotus camera owner knew what he is doing.

My mistake.

Your clarification is most welcome. Sincerely

[Peter De Smidt]

Try your Ronar. The biggest limitation will be lack of depth of field and camera stability. _Any_ movement will kill sharpness, and that includes any shutter vibration. I would setup in a room that can be made dark. Compose, focus, load film. Turn off lights. Open shutter. Wait a few seconds. Fire your flash. Close shutter. Note: it's standard practice with large format macro shots to use multiple flashes to get enough light. I recently shot a 1x magnification shot with 4x5 on a table top. It took 4 flashes with 4800w/s to get enough light.

[Oren Grad]

I do not understand why this thread has been moved from ULF to the "lenses" section. My camera is a 14" x 17" camera, it is as ULF as it gets, the question was ULF-specific and I believe may be of interest only to those shooting with ULF cameras.

The subforum scope definitions, stated on the FAQ page, are as follows:

Cameras - ULF (Ultra Large Format) and Accessories - Large format cameras of all types, having a diagonal of 13" or larger. (Note: lenses and lens accessories have their own sub-forum.)

Lenses & Lens Accessories - Discussions about Large Format Lenses & Lens Accessories (including lenses capable of being used on ULF)

[Steve Goldstein]

Marco, one possibility to consider is the 210mm Macro-Sironar. The lens design allows for swapping the front and rear cells depending on magnification - for reduction (1:3 to 1:1) you use it one way, for enlargement (1:1 to 3:1) you use it the other way. It probably has a lot more range than this, some people say they use it at infinity in reduction mode! It's in a #3 shutter.

The little Rodenstock data I've seen says it's "suitable for use" on 5x7. To me that means it'll cover 5x7 at 1/3 magnification, with the object image on the film smaller than life size. You're talking about 3x, which would take a 5x7 field up to 15x21, so I'd think it would cover your 14x17 negative at this magnification, but I don't know about 2x.

There was also a 300mm Macro-Sironar that worked the same way (by interchanging cells) but it's much less common.