I read where a process lens is optimized for 1:1 photography with a likely aperture setting of f22. At this magnification, the subject matter is about two focal lengths away from the lens.
I'm wondering, how many focal lengths away must be the subject matter, before a standard lens (versus a process lens) will get effectively the same result?
Put another way, at what magnification does a process lens become advantageous, versus a standard lens?
Depends. Better process lenses tend to be 4-element air-spaced symmetrical lenses versus the tessar style typically used for cheaper ones. So some of these, like my 4-element Apo Nikkors, are going to be very precise all the way from 1:1 clear out to infinity, and probably pretty good at even slightly greater magnification than 1:1, in other words, quite a bit better than general purpose photography lenses. And at least the series I work with is stunning sharp and well corrected by f/11 down. The f/22 standard is for sake of a printing industry common-denominator specifications, as does not condemn performance at other apertures.
Now, as per you actual question, there's no way to answer it, because you haven't told us yet exactly which "standard" shooting lenses you have in mind. They differ. Some of my own "standard" view lenses happen to be close-range corrected Fujinon A's and Schneider G-Clarons, which themselves perform excellently at infinity clear down to near-macro, at least stopped down a bit. But most general purpose LF lenses don't do so well really close up. And some, like the Nikkor AM series, are designed for only close-up.
That's a good point.Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
While I would consider something else, I was thinking of a 210mm G-Claron as a process lens, and definitely a Plasmat (the only other lenses that I have) in the same focal length as a "standard" lens.
I have it in mind to photograph a violin in vertical, frontal position, straight on and across using a 5x7 camera with no movements. I would enlarge either to 11x14 or 16x20. I would like to see every tiny spec of detail on the front of the violin.
If that is your goal then it won't matter when using f22-f22 1/2. But going closer to 1:1 it will make the G-Claron shine, while if you try to shoot wide open the plasmat will shine - my Apo-symmar 210mm was so sharp in center it did match my 35mm lenses, while my process lenses do not show super sharpness before f11-f16.That's a good point.
While I would consider something else, I was thinking of a 210mm G-Claron as a process lens, and definitely a Plasmat (the only other lenses that I have) in the same focal length as a "standard" lens.
I have it in mind to photograph a violin in vertical, frontal position, straight on and across using a 5x7 camera with no movements. I would enlarge either to 11x14 or 16x20. I would like to see every tiny spec of detail on the front of the violin.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/470525...57634939838558 at the bottom has 1:1 pictures comparing 210mm of single-coated Fujinon-W, Nikkor-W, Apo-Gerogon f9 and a Macro-Sironar-N 210mm macro-on-mirrorless shots, done just to educate myself.
Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk
In fact, I'd be using a 180mm Apo Symmar, which has plenty of image circle for 5x7.
This has turned into quite a helpful thread. I appreciate the responses that have been offered.
A full size adult violin is about 23" long. With a 5x7 sheet of film, and without taking into account the background, you're at a magnification of 4.6:1 (landscape orientation) or 3.3:1 (portrait orientation) just for the violin. You're more or less at the magnification ratio of portraits of people. A standard lens should work fine.
Please define 'close work' exactly
When does normal become Macro andor close work
Ken Lee is a master of typewriter keys, what is that called
Is there a rule?
Tin Can
I didn't even use the term "close work", and I addressed your questions in post #3. I would have thought that what I said in the post to which you're responding (#12) is self-explanatory.
Thank you
I will be using for the first time a Nikkor 210mm AM ED Macro
I have used Plasmasts at +3 on 11X14 some years ago and was blasted universally by Forum experts
Tin Can
The lens designer/manufacturer may have a recommendation on this. For example, Schneider-Kreuznach recommends that its 150mm Super-Symmar XL not be used at a magnification ratio of more than 3:1. For greater magnification, it would recommend a macro lens. As you probably know, there have been many discussions on the forum about whether macro lenses have advantages over process and standard lenses. In my case, I would follow the recommendation and use Nikon's Nikkor 210mm AM ED Macro lens instead of the 150mm Super-Symmar XL. It isn't relevant to your post, but this would also buy me a bit more working room.
Last edited by r.e.; 2-Mar-2022 at 02:38.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks