Macro Lenses...

[8x10 user]

I've use the 210mm AMED for shots that a near 1:1 on 8x10. For slightly larger or smaller ratios I have an macro Sironar N which is a convertible lens that is either optimized at 1:3 or 3:1. For objects that are slightly larger then the film format I have an Apo-Macro-Sironar which is optimized for objets about twice the size of the film format. For extreme enlargement ratios I got a short little enlargement lens that can be used in reverse. I know I have probably have more lenses then I need but I got some fantastic deals on some of them and I want to keep them all until I have a chance to do a ton of real comparison tests.

210mm does seem a little long for 4x5 to me. Of course with a longer lens you will get a more compact perspective and less distortion. Then downside is that you will need longer bellows and you made need to stop the lens down more for depth of field issues (longer focal length= shorter depth of field).

I would expect macro lenses to preform somewhat better then process lens for macro purposes. I guess it really depends on what suits your needs the best and what is in your budget. BTW what reproduction ratios are you planning on using the lens for? Are you planing on moving to larger formats in the near future?

All the best,
Ed

[ljsegil]

Thanks for everyone's input, I've certainly learned quite a bit. I do shoot 5x7 and 8x10, as well as 4x5. I don't expect (at least not currently) that I will be trying for magnifications much larger than 2:1 or perhaps 3:1, most of my work so far has been about 1:1. I have been able to experiment a bit with the Nikkor AM lenses and have the impression that they produce a little more sharpness, particularly towards the edges of the image, than the conventional lenses I have tried. I look forward to more experimentation utilizing some of the ideas I have gleaned from this discussion and will try to find some of the literature recommended.
Again, many thanks.
Larry

[john collins]

I have a Rodenstock 180 APO Macro Sironar in like new condition for $950. If you're interested, please PM me.

Thanks,
John

[Mark Sawyer]

Just a general thought that the process lenses I've used for close-up/macro work (Konica GRII, Ultragon, Cooke Series V) have all performed admirably. Considering the cost differential between official lf macro lenses and process lenses, I'm happy with the process lenses.

I've also heard of people being quite happy with enlarging lenses, sometimes reversed, for macro/close-up work.

Between the bellows extension and the small working aperture (due to limited depth of field a such distances), exposure times will be long enough that shutters might be a waste of money for most photographers.

[Scott Rosenberg]

i found that some process-type lenses will do allright (fuji a, rodenstock apo ronar) in the absence of a dedicated macro lens. however, if you're going to do be doing a lot of this type of work, a true macro lens is tough to beat.

i can attest to the 180 rodie... it's spectacular. that said, if i'm not going TOO small, my 300 Ronar does a fine job.

-scott

[Dan Fromm]

Just a general thought that the process lenses I've used for close-up/macro work (Konica GRII, Ultragon, Cooke Series V) have all performed admirably. Considering the cost differential between official lf macro lenses and process lenses, I'm happy with the process lenses.

I've also heard of people being quite happy with enlarging lenses, sometimes reversed, for macro/close-up work.

Between the bellows extension and the small working aperture (due to limited depth of field a such distances), exposure times will be long enough that shutters might be a waste of money for most photographers.

Second the motion on the GRII at magnifications that aren't too high. Ages ago I got curious about how good my 210 GRII was, so I shot it against my 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS at 1:2 and ~ 10m. Short answer, at f/11, f/16, and f/22 the GRII is markedly better. And of course it has more coverage.

As for enlarging lenses, I have a 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar that matches a known good 100/6.3 Luminar at f/11, f/16, and f/22 from 1:8 to 1:1 (all of those apertures are usable at those magnifications) at wide open from 1:1 to 4:1. All these shots with both lenses mounted normally. I believe that the EPR is symmetrical (or very nearly symmetrical) 6/4 plasmat type.

Cheers,

Dan

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

...
As for enlarging lenses, I have a 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar that matches a known good 100/6.3 Luminar at f/11, f/16, and f/22 from 1:8 to 1:1 (all of those apertures are usable at those magnifications) at wide open from 1:1 to 4:1. ...

Great joke Dan, good for a deep laugh!! Guess that must be a pretty crappy Luminar then...

[Bjorn Nilsson]

Dan,
...
Others have also commented that a conventional lens like say the Fuji A 240mm can perform very well up to and beyond 1:1 and perhaps beyond. Does a purpose built macro lens, say again the 210mm Nikkor AM or Macro-Sironar, have much of an advantage at these sorts of magnifications? Does it take higher levels of magnification for the macro lens to outperform a Tessar or Process lens?
Thanks for all your wisdom and patience,
Larry

The Fuji A series lenses are indeed process type lenses, which have become very popular for normal use as they are very sharp and also very compact. (I use a Fuji A240 and I love mine.) So, being a process lens, it's at its best at close distances. Still a dedicated Macro lens will probably be a tad better around 1:1, while most process type lenses are optimized for say 1:5 to 1:10 or so.

//Björn