Macro lens for 11x14. Will the 300mm Rodenstock cover?

[John Layton]

If my assumption is correct that you will not be enlarging these negatives, then you would likely not see any notable differences in performance between a purpose-built macro lens and another non-macro, but reasonably good quality lens of the same focal length (likely a plasmat to allow good 1:1 coverage with a short enough FL to keep bellows extensions reasonable).

[xkaes]

I am considering the Rodenstock Macro because it is corrected for this extreme close up. Has anyone actually used one? Is it that much better than a lens not designed for closeup work?

I would not call 1:1 - 3:1 "extreme", but there are lots of lenses that are designed for that range -- and will provide similar results. You need to look at the image circle they create in that range. The ones with the smallest image circles -- that cover 11x44" -- will have shorter focal lengths, require lens bellows extension, and cost less. They might even have wider apertures.

[cuypers1807]

I have shot 11x14 macro with a 50mm enlarger lens but the exposure times were extreme. I routinely use an 150mm Schneider Super Symmar XL with great results.

[Kiwi7475]

Another consideration is the depth of field. If you’re limited to f64 by your lens, even in 8x10, a 150mm lens focused at 20cm (to get a x3 magnification) will have a depth of field of about 1.4 cm (standard convention of CoC without enlarging the print), and 7mm at f32. Same if using a 300mm lens focused at 40 cm.

[Bernice Loui]

What would be the "macro" subject for 11x14 film and what are the print image goals?

This will be the primary decider for lens and all related. Lens is one small aspect of the much greater whole. There is lighting, set up, camera-bellows draw needed to achieve the magnification/image ratios to meet the image goals. Regardless DOF/F will be an issue. If contact printing f90 is often more than ok, still f90 might not achieve the DOF/F needed to meet the image goals. By f90, all lenses become diffraction limited.. makes nil difference for a "macro" lens or enlarging lens or process lens or wide angle lens or... there is NO magical lens that can escape this way of Nature


Bernice

[Tin Can]

We do have a Macro thread or 3

I have posted before this set

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1591830

[Torontoamateur]

If my assumption is correct that you will not be enlarging these negatives, then you would likely not see any notable differences in performance between a purpose-built macro lens and another non-macro, but reasonably good quality lens of the same focal length (likely a plasmat to allow good 1:1 coverage with a short enough FL to keep bellows extensions reasonable).

I am preparing for extreme enlargements. A local expert on drum Scanning is collaborating. I do expect to print large size. In my 8x10 work i generally scan and print 5 to 7 feet . The impact of a macro image made 6 to 8 feet tall is actually what I am planning to do. Sharpness is primary. My bellows has a draw of 45 inches.

[Torontoamateur]

I see no one has had actual experience with the 300mm Macro . The general comments I had already considered before embarking on the quest. I have tried my macro lenses ( among them the Nikkor 210 ED) for 8x10 and my short 150mm Grandagon and 120 SW Nikkor. They do cover but are not fully corrected for close up work as I contemplate.The limits of depth of field and use of the tilts and shifts on the Wisner Technical Field allow for some control. I guess the only way is to actually use the lens and find out. Thank you for your well thought out comments and interest.You are very helpful and I know other photographers will find this thread of interest .

[John Layton]

Good for you for going big! Would love to know how this works out.

In the meantime...a very teachable moment here for everyone - that in the spirit of efficiency and respect, when we pose questions such as these it would be really nice to give some idea, to the extent that we might envision this...of our goals for an actual end result. Just sayin'

[xkaes]

My experience with large format macro lenses is limited to the Fujinon 180mm NA f9.0. It's the same situation, just on a smaller scale -- not necessarily a lower magnification.

There are some other large format macro lenses usable for larger formats. Here are the Fujinon options with their image circles at infinity in brackets:

Fujinon A 240mm f9.0 (336mm)
Fujinon NA 240mm f9.0 (336mm)

Fujinon NA 300mm f9.0 (420mm)

Fujinon A 360mm f10.0 (500mm)
Fujinon A S 360mm f10.0 (500mm)
Fujinon NA 360mm f10.0 (504mm)

Fujinon A 600mm f11.0 (840mm)
Fujinon A S 600mm f11.0 (840mm)

Fujinon A 1200mm f24.0 (1120mm)
Fujinon A S 1200mm f24.0 (1120mm)


Given your bellows limits, the 1200mm won't give you any macro, and the 600mm only to 1:1, but the others are all good options.

And even the Fujinon A & NA 180mm f9.0 would be good for higher magnifications.