Focusing at 1:1 magnification

[Bob Salomon]

The Nikon Nikkor AM 210mm f/5.6 ED is also a good option and much cheaper than the Apo Sironar. There’s also a 120mm version. At 1:1 and f22 they more than cover 8x10.

But I think it’s more practical to use them with 4x5 to avoid foreshortening— obviously that depends on what the subject is (shape/geometry).

Are you talking about the Apo Macro Sironar or the Apo Sironar N or the Apo Sironar N or the Apo Sironar W or Apo Sironar or the Makro Sironar? All were available in 210mm but only the Apo Macro Sironar and the Apo Macro Sironar Digital were/are available in 120mm.

[Kiwi7475]

Are you talking about the Apo Macro Sironar or the Apo Sironar N or the Apo Sironar N or the Apo Sironar W or Apo Sironar or the Makro Sironar? All were available in 210mm but only the Apo Macro Sironar and the Apo Macro Sironar Digital were/are available in 120mm.

Apo Macro Sironar digital.

The Nikkor AM ED can be found for about 2/3 of that one, of course that’s just a general observation as one can sometimes get lucky. But the Nikkor AM ED are great for macro.

[Bob Salomon]

Apo Macro Sironar digital.

The Nikkor AM ED can be found for about 2/3 of that one, of course that’s just a general observation as one can sometimes get lucky. But the Nikkor AM ED are great for macro.

But you are comparing a digital macro lens to a non digital one.
The proper comparison is to the 120 Apo Macro Sironar which is an analog lens for 1:5 to 5:1.

Nikon never made any view type lenses for digital applications.

[Kiwi7475]

But you are comparing a digital macro lens to a non digital one.
The proper comparison is to the 120 Apo Macro Sironar which is an analog lens for 1:5 to 5:1.

Nikon never made any view type lenses for digital applications.

I am comparing the price. The Nikkor is at least 35% cheaper, generally, than the Apo macro sironar, in either its digital version or not, and is also designed for 1:1.

[Bob Salomon]

I am comparing the price. The Nikkor is at least 35% cheaper, generally, than the Apo macro sironar, in either its digital version or not, and is also designed for 1:1.

Once again, the Apo Macro Sironar is optimized from 1:5 to 5:1. The Nikon is corrected for 1:1.

[Kiwi7475]

Once again, the Apo Macro Sironar is optimized from 1:5 to 5:1. The Nikon is corrected for 1:1.

Once again, the Apo Macro Sironar is optimized from 1:5 to 5:1. The Nikon is corrected for 1:1.

I have not compared both far beyond 1:1, but given how much you end up closing the aperture, most of the time, I don’t know that any significant difference will show up. Do you know from experience that they are going to perform differently for any practical purposes within that range?

The Nikkor is a symmetrical design and according to this also optimized between 1:5 to 5:1:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_LF.html

“The AM Nikkors (there also is a big brother, the 210 AM) are designed for close-ups with peak performance in the range 1:5 to 5:1 magnification. “

However I can’t claim it’s accurate.

Ultimately I don’t think you can optimize a lens design over such a wide range. You have an optimum magnification performance always, and then performance degrades around there. I suspect the quoted range of magnifications is the window over which the performance is acceptable, but it doesn’t mean that it’s constant across 1:5 to 5:1.

In the end, Bob, I am just trying to make OP aware of this option which is more economical while being responsive of his original request for “1:1 magnification”.

[Heroique]

I love my Schneider 150mm f/9 g-claron lens, a process lens w/ a simple design and optimized for flat surfaces at 1:1. (But I love it even more for its tiny size, light weight, and general landscape use – it goes into my pack on one-lens backpacking trips if I see strenuous climbing on the map.)

It has moderate coverage for 4x5 (about 190mm), but the longer FL g-clarons can work with 5x7 and I think 8x10. It's easy to focus in brighter conditions, and I've never shot it wider than f/22 – I suspect its image quality might quickly drop-off if I opened-up closer to its widest f/9 aperture. Maybe I'll try some day.

Here's an image approaching 1:1 – the lovely bark of a ponderosa pine. I added more than a stop for compensation. The small-and-light lens makes demanding macro work easier, though I don’t remember this shot being too difficult. I asked the ponderosa to remain as still as possible and it cooperated.



Tachi 4x5
Schneider 150mm/9 g-claron
Ilford HP5+ (in Kodak HC-110)
Epson 4990/Epson Scan

[Bob Salomon]

I have not compared both far beyond 1:1, but given how much you end up closing the aperture, most of the time, I don’t know that any significant difference will show up. Do you know from experience that they are going to perform differently for any practical purposes within that range?

The Nikkor is a symmetrical design and according to this also optimized between 1:5 to 5:1:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_LF.html

“The AM Nikkors (there also is a big brother, the 210 AM) are designed for close-ups with peak performance in the range 1:5 to 5:1 magnification. “

However I can’t claim it’s accurate.

Ultimately I don’t think you can optimize a lens design over such a wide range. You have an optimum magnification performance always, and then performance degrades around there. I suspect the quoted range of magnifications is the window over which the performance is acceptable, but it doesn’t mean that it’s constant across 1:5 to 5:1.

In the end, Bob, I am just trying to make OP aware of this option which is more economical while being responsive of his original request for “1:1 magnification”.

One sells used for about $600.00 and the other about $900.00. The more expensive one far outsold the cheaper one. Performance accounts for that difference. Plus Rodenstock actively pursued large format sales. Nikon didn’t. Their efforts went into 35mm, microscopes, etc..

[Kiwi7475]

One sells used for about $600.00 and the other about $900.00. The more expensive one far outsold the cheaper one. Performance accounts for that difference. Plus Rodenstock actively pursued large format sales. Nikon didn’t. Their efforts went into 35mm, microscopes, etc..

I’m done with this thread. Bye.

[ic-racer]

All I get on the ground glass is a very blurry and far away looking rectangle.

Any luck getting it in focus yet?