I am on the brink of getting a macro lens for my Arca F-line 4x5. I have used before a regular (non-macro) 150 lens for between 1:2 to 1:1 (half to full life size), but the images tend to be a bit soft, even when flashed and not excessively stopped down. Space between the lens and the object (flowers, mushrooms, ...) has been ok, but not generous, so I rather consider a 180 mm than a 120 mm. 210 is too long for bellows draw. That whittles it down to Schneider and Rodenstock. Although both are fully symmetrical designs optimized for 1:1, Schneider gives their magnification ratio as 1:3 to 3:1, whereas Rodenstock rather goes from 1:5 to 2:1. Makes no optical sense to me, but what do I know?
I tend towards the Rodenstock, more versatile in smaller than life size photography [close-up, if you like], has a bit more movements, is a bit lighter (400 vs 500 g) (also a tad cheaper). One thing I am a bit confused about is the f-stop range. In their table, they list "working f-stop" 5.6 - 22, though the photo shows a copal shutter going to at least f/45, possibly f/64. I understand the issue with effective f-stop (f/22 on shutter @ 1:1 = effective f/45 at image plane), and image degradation by diffraction. Is there more to it?
Anything else to consider? I shoot exclusively chromes. Re longitudinal chromatic error, for the Rodenstock macro 120 mm (no indications for the 180) it is 0.25 mm in the red, which seems reasonable. I could not find any indications for the Schneider.
Bookmarks