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

[Dan Fromm]

Steve, per Rodenstock's data sheets the 360/9 Apo-Ronar covers 48 degrees and its design focal length is 355 mm. That means it will cover 316 mm @ infinity, 632 mm @ 1:1. 11x14's diagonal is ~ 550 mm. OK? Oh, and by the way, Rodenstock says the 360 will reach full coverage at f/22. f/22 @ 3:1 is f/88 effective. That puts the diffraction limit at around 17 lp/mm, more than enough to make contact prints that look sharp.

You can find Rodenstock's data sheets for most of their recent lenses, including Apo Ronars, at https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resi...t=folder%2cpdf I don't make this stuff up.

Also, Apo-Ronars in barrel are perfectly symmetrical. This means that they'll work well from infinity to - infinity mounted normally.

Folks, if you'll do a little looking on this site you'll find many reports that Apo Ronars work well at all distances/magnifications. Marco, they don't go all mushy at any magnification. Is taking a few test shots really that expensive?

[Taija71A]

... i.e., macro still life in the range 2x - 4x life size with my 14x17 Lotus camera...
... apo-ronar 360mm lens...
... The max bellows extension of my Lotus is about 1200mm, give or take...
--
... Nikon AM 210mm, a Schneider Macro-Symmar HM 180mm, or a Rodenstock Apo-Macro Sironar 180mm...

Quick Answer:

Marco, based on your 'stated' Parameters...
You are not going to be able to achieve 4X Magnification (or even quite 3X for that matter)... With your 360mm Apo-Ronar Lens.
--
Therefore, if you 'truly' need these magnification sizes (3X - 4X)... You are going to have to look at 'other' options (*I.e. 'perhaps' using a shorter F.L. Lens).
If that is the case... Then some of your listed options -- Are perhaps more 'fully' warranted.

*However... Please take 'careful' note of the Respective Coverage for these Lenses --
At other Image Magnifications (1X - 2X). Thank-you!

Best Regards, -Tim.

[Pfsor]

Lens shake will be you biggest problem. Your Lotus is not made for that kind of rigidity you'll need.

[Greg]

For 4x5 Macrophotography in the field use a 120mm Micro-Nikkor (off of my Nikon Multiphot system), sample image printed on Pl/Pd attached.

Have just started to do Macrophotography with my 11x14 and am using G-Clarons. Have yet to produce an image worth printing a 11x14 Pl/Pd print of. First hurdle exposure calculation - used a Horseman behind the lens meter with the 4x5. Now relearning manual exposure calculation. Wind was the next problem... the bellows acts like a sail. Shutter vibration not a problem cause of long exposures. Tried using a card in front of the lens but produced more vibration than the shutter. Depth of field at small apertures akin to using a pinhole with all the diffraction. Can't imagine using a 14x17....

best of luck

[Marco Annaratone]

Lots of comments and suggestion to think about. Right now I am between studios, and the new one will not be operational for another month. So, it may take a while before I can make some experiments. I started this thread because - if there was a lens I needed to buy - I wanted to get a head start. All things considered I will follow Dan's advice and test the Apo-Ronar first, although I won't be able to go above 2x. Yes, lots of light will be necessary and the depth of field will be a nightmare, restricting very much the range of usable subjects (I am not interested in taking photos two-dimensional subjects, for instance ).

Pfsor: "Your Lotus is not made for that kind of rigidity you'll need." Well, this is worrisome. Can you elaborate?

Greg: no wind for me (strictly in studio). I only heard amazing things on the Micro-Nikkors...........

Tim: Thanks a lot for your very constructive comments. And, yes, 3x and 4x are NOT "truly needed" right now. But 2x is: in my crazy ULF universe it would mean taking a picture of a 'normal' object 6in in height, for instance.

Cheers!

[Pfsor]

Pfsor: "Your Lotus is not made for that kind of rigidity you'll need." Well, this is worrisome. Can you elaborate?
Cheers!

Marco, try a simple test. Take your lens, crank your Lotus to reach 3 or 4x the magnification and have a look at the gg (with an open lens) while touching the front standard or just releasing the shutter. If the picture on gg doesn't move a miracle has happened. You will see that whatever force on the lens or the standard is applied it makes the picture dance.
You would need a different construction where there are no gliding parts, only one piece construction. And then 2 supporting tripods. And a very rigid terrain under them and no walking around etc. etc.
To put it simply - the Lotus of this size is mechanically not made for the job. You go against its nature. Before you spend money see for yourself with this test, you have nothing to lose, just looking at the gg you will get understanding what happens mechanically in the trial. Cheers!

[Tin Can]

Here's a test I did last night. 2.5X on ULF.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...Close-Distance

[Oren Grad]

Marco, try a simple test. Take your lens, crank your Lotus to reach 3 or 4x the magnification and have a look at the gg (with an open lens) while touching the front standard or just releasing the shutter. If the picture on gg doesn't move a miracle has happened. You will see that whatever force on the lens or the standard is applied it makes the picture dance.
You would need a different construction where there are no gliding parts, only one piece construction. And then 2 supporting tripods. And a very rigid terrain under them and no walking around etc. etc.
To put it simply - the Lotus of this size is mechanically not made for the job. You go against its nature. Before you spend money see for yourself with this test, you have nothing to lose, just looking at the gg you will get understanding what happens mechanically in the trial. Cheers!

Even if this test shows plenty of vibration, all is not necessarily lost. With a combination of supports and clamps it may be possible to gain adequate rigidity at long extension even if the camera by itself isn't quite up to the task. Something like Alan Brubaker's wind stabilizer kit could also be useful. Repeating the GG observation as you try different approaches to securing the camera may help you find your way to a setup that works for your purposes.

Good luck!

[Tin Can]

Not so much an issue in OP's stated studio only condition.

Strobes also stop movement.

Even if this test shows plenty of vibration, all is not necessarily lost. With a combination of supports and clamps it may be possible to gain adequate rigidity at long extension even if the camera by itself isn't quite up to the task. Something like Alan Brubaker's wind stabilizer kit could also be useful. Repeating the GG observation as you try different approaches to securing the camera may help you find your way to a setup that works for your purposes.

Good luck!

[StoneNYC]

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.

The thread was moved because they refuse to add an ULF lens category.

Personally I think there's great value in discussing ULF under a separate ULF area, until you've worked with it, it would SEEM to have parallels to smaller formats, but it's an entirely different thought process. And if we are giving all the "smaller than 4x5" images there own section, why shouldn't the ULF get their own area, especially and specifically in a LF specific Forum.

Ok off my soap box.

It's possible that above 1:1 say 3x as you mentioned, that even a 210 Nikkor makro lens might cover that FOV.

I personally might try my 360 EL-Nikkor or 300 EL-Nikkor enlarging lens. It's designed for 1x-4x enlargement or so, so simply using this lens as a taking lens instead would seem to me, to give just as good detail without "falling apart" and these lenses would certainly cover 14x17 at even 2x.

However I have not tried this kind of macro work with my enlarging lenses so I can't be sure, but this would be my first thought / attempt before buying other lenses.

Best of luck.