8x10 Macro Photography lens Question

[Mark Sawyer]

It would be helpful for the OP to let us know the magnification. As Pere noted, 1:1 is different from 1:5. And very different from 5:1.

[fuegocito]

I was curious at this question as well, whether there is any practical differences between a regular (Plasmat) lens and a dedicated LF macro lens. So I shot the same scene at close to 1:1 range on 810 and visually look at the final images, I am not going to argue how lenses are "optimized" for this and that, but in practical use, I see no differences between a regular lens compare to a Macro lens in direct comparison. I imagine if the test is done scientifically it may yield different results, but since our day to day photography is not done in absolute terms, I would say if there is any differences, it is relatively moot for our day to day usage.

[Dan Fromm]

A Nikkor EL 50mm covers 8x10 at around 4:1, and if reversed it works at its sweet point...

At lower magnification we may use say a componon-s 100mm, to cite two lenses I've tested reversed...

About that 50 El Nikkor, did you use it at 4:1 on 8x10? I ask because following Emmanuel's logic (see https://www.largeformatphotography.i...-lens-coverage), at 4:1 it should cover around 215 mm, somewhat less than 8x10's diagonal.

At 1:1 we can reasonably expect a 100 mm enlarging lens to cover 12 cm x 16 cm. This is much smaller than 18x24.

Think and calculate before posting, Papi.

[Drew Wiley]

The whole problem here is what is meant by macro. A whole flower or the eyeball of a bug on it? For closeup work on 8x10, I use my Fuji A lenses, which are much better corrected at close range than general purpose plasmats. G-Clarons are a similar design. There IS a visible significant difference in the print, which certainly isn't moot, at least if it's optically enlarged. Contact printers get away with all kinds of things, and color inkjet prints just can't hold high resolution. But for really tiny subjects I'd want a dedicated lens design, and those don't do very well at more ordinary distances, so aren't versatile. But if you specialize in photographing bugs or diamond rings, it would be a wise investment. Micro photography is yet another topic.

[Pere Casals]

About that 50 El Nikkor, did you use it at 4:1 on 8x10? I ask because following Emmanuel's logic (see https://www.largeformatphotography.i...-lens-coverage), at 4:1 it should cover around 215 mm, somewhat less than 8x10's diagonal.

At 1:1 we can reasonably expect a 100 mm enlarging lens to cover 12 cm x 16 cm. This is much smaller than 18x24.

Think and calculate before posting, Papi.

Dan, yes, you are right, as always...

We discused that two years ago: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1416568

Then I calculated it and the Nikkor EL 50mm covers 5x7 at 3.91:1

This was my calculation:



To me it's easier making the calculation with Solidworks


Anyway, let me insist how in powerful is a Reversed Enlarging lens for extreme Macro, that EL casts beyond 50 lp/mm on film taking more than 200 lp/mm on subject at 4:1 on 5x7" or 4x5", taking amazing detail from flat subjects, of course DOF is narrow...


And also let me point again the solution of attaching a filter adapter ring on a lensboard using the filter thread of the lens to screew the lens on the board, in that way we have all the reversed lens outside and we may operate it.

The way to attch the ring adapter to the lensboard is also easy, we need an adapter that jumps everal sizes, in that way there is space in the disc to drill several holes for bolting the adapter to the lensboard:



Of course this would be dangerous for big glasses, but perfectly suitable to reverse a Componon or Symmar 150.

[Tracy Storer]

I've done a lot of medium - high magnification with reversed enlarging lenses. (Apo-Rodagon 50mm and 80mm on the Polaroid 20"x24", as well as lots of assorted other longer lenses for less mag.)
If it can make your 35mm negative into a 20"x24" print, it's good for the job. I made a ring that has male Copal #1(front) threads on one side and the lenses filter threads (also male) on the other side. Works great.

[fuegocito]

Generally speaking, when many people speak of comparing lens A vs lens B, most people would compare images taken with A lens and B lens but not necessary of the two said lenses shooting the exact same scene for direct comparison. In such cases, to make any statement about the comparative quality of the two lenses is really operating on fairly weak ground.

For my experiment, I used my 810 and shot a close up of two tomatoes using a book as the background (right, no resolution charts, no shapes all over to define distortion, no color grids to define color shift) just an ordinary scene of what and how I might shoot in B&W. The lenses I employed, since I was going to go at this, I might as well try all the lenses I have lingered around. So in no particular order I shot with an Apo Symmar 210, Commercial Ektar 210, A Collinear (170-190mm range), a 203mm Ektar, A single coated Fujinon 210mm (the one with huge IC), a Dagor 210mm, a G-Claron 210mm, a Geronar 210mm, a Protar(focal length?) and last but not least, a Macro Sironar 210mm in standard lens group arrangement. First image is the set up(done with Apo Symmar), and the second is a composite of all the center crop of all the images shot with the said lenses at 2 stop down from wide open. With each lens I shot at wide open, at two stop closed down from max aperture and at F/64. For the composite I think I may have picked the wrong neg with G-Claron lens, picking the F/64 instead of the F/16 neg. And the final image is of the one shot with the Macro-Sironar

[Pere Casals]

the background

Nice test !!

[Mark Sawyer]

Weston's Pepper No. 30 is about twice life-size, and was made with a run-of-the-mill 210mm Zeiss Tessar, and I've never heard anyone complain about its quality...

[Dan Fromm]

fuegocito, what magnification did you shoot at?

Mark, as peppers go #30 is soft everywhere. Just goes to prove that sharpness isn't everything.