Focusing at 1:1 magnification

[ic-racer]

At one-to-one, your film is going to be very close to 'the point of no return' whereby the film can be too close to the subject (less than 4X Focal Length) and there will be NO FOCUSED IMAGE no matter where the lens is positioned.

As suggested above, try focusing by moving the entire camera or moving the subject.

This the same when enlarging to one-to-one. You would need to move the entire head up and down to focus. Moving just the lens can, if the negative is closer than 4x focal length to the paper, produce no focused image no matter where the lens stage focus is positioned.

[Dan Fromm]

Yes, agree. I see that I could have put in 8x10" in the sentence:If you are to cover the same 4x5" with 8x10" to make it clearer

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

More word salad and this

With a 4x5" you will cover 4x5" at 1:1. To cover the same 4x5" subject, use the 121mm lens at 484mm bellows and ca 242mm distance. Focus as described further up.

is still mistaken.

[Mark Sawyer]

The only 121mm lens I know of is the Super Angulon. I have one and tried it long ago as a close-up lens (as I wanted something with lots of movements) and found it performed very poorly as a macro. I never tried it reversed though.

Weston's 210 lens used for his veggies and shells was an uncoated 210mm Zeiss Tessar, very common and inexpensive. For 1:1 on 8x10, I'd recommend a modern coated process lens of 150mm to 240mm, as they're high quality, optimized for the 1:1 range, and inexpensive. Or an enlarging lens, if you have one around.

[Bob Salomon]

The only 121mm lens I know of is the Super Angulon. I have one and tried it long ago as a close-up lens (as I wanted something with lots of movements) and found it performed very poorly as a macro. I never tried it reversed though.

Weston's 210 lens used for his veggies and shells was an uncoated 210mm Zeiss Tessar, very common and inexpensive. For 1:1 on 8x10, I'd recommend a modern coated process lens of 150mm to 240mm, as they're high quality, optimized for the 1:1 range, and inexpensive. Or an enlarging lens, if you have one around.

Or a dedicated macro lens like the 180 Apo Macro Sironar that is corrected for 1:5 to 5:1 or the older 210mm Makto Sironar that is corrected for 1:3 to 3:1. With the latter you swap the front and rear groups around according to the pictographs on the barrel. At 1:1 the position of the groups do not matter. With the 180 the groups are not changed.

[Mark Sawyer]

Or a dedicated macro lens like the 180 Apo Macro Sironar that is corrected for 1:5 to 5:1 or the older 210mm Makto Sironar that is corrected for 1:3 to 3:1. With the latter you swap the front and rear groups around according to the pictographs on the barrel. At 1:1 the position of the groups do not matter. With the 180 the groups are not changed.

Hi, Bob! Just curious, is this an indication that the 180mm Apo Macro Sironar is symmetrical, while the 210mm Macro Sironar is not?

[Ken Lee]

A 180mm lens on 8x10 gives the same horizontal angle of view as a 90mm lens on 4x5, which is the same horizontal angle of view as a 30mm lens on a 35mm or "full frame" camera. (As a rule of thumb, with respect to horizontal viewing angle, we can divide by 6 to convert from 8x10 to full-frame).

On a 35mm or full-frame camera, a 30mm lens is considered wide-angle and at close distance exhibits foreshortening, an exaggerated perspective where the foreground appears disproportionately larger than the background. For example, see the image below where a few fingers appear as tall as the subject's entire torso.



To achieve that foreshortened look, the shorter the lens and the closer it is to the subject, the better.

[Bob Salomon]

Hi, Bob! Just curious, is this an indication that the 180mm Apo Macro Sironar is symmetrical, while the 210mm Macro Sironar is not?

To be sure you should ask Rodenstock. I no longer have the drawings. There was also a 120mm Apo Macro Sironar also corrected for 1:5 to 5:1.

[Oren Grad]

Hi, Bob! Just curious, is this an indication that the 180mm Apo Macro Sironar is symmetrical, while the 210mm Macro Sironar is not?

The cross-section published by Rodenstock for the 120 and 180 Apo-Macro-Sironar is not symmetrical.

[Armin Seeholzer]

The cross-section published by Rodenstock for the 120 and 180 Apo-Macro-Sironar is not symmetrical.

The drawings of the 120/180mm looks very similar to the old ones 210/300mm, just the fixation looks a bit changed, and yes they are not symmetrical, but not so far away to be so!

[Kiwi7475]

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).