What does"Macro" mean in LF?

[John Hartung]

I am trying to learn enough about LF to decide whether to wade in further. Any advice will be greatly appreciated.

Question 1: Given two LF lenses of the same focal length, what does the designa tion ?macro? mean? Is there a movable internal element? Is less bellows extens ion needed for a macro?

Question 2: I am considering the Horseman FA and the Walker Titan SF. One of t he pictures I want to be able to take is a 1:1 close up of a typical phalaenopsi s orchid -- which is approximately 4.25? wide, 3.6? high and 1.4? deep. Keeping depth of field in mind, but not wanting to distort the image too much with a su per wide-angle lens, what would be a great LF lens for that shot? And would the standard bellows extension on the Horseman (272mm) be adequate for that shot wi th that lens?

Question 3: Love the look and idea (design concept) of the Canham DLC45, but ha ve read too many posts about the rear standard moving when it needs to stay put. Any experience? Other camera suggestions?

Thank you.

[KN7yeEBJ]

Can't answer questions 2 or 3, can answer 1.

"Macro" means designed for best performance at near focusing distances. A lens can perform best at only one distance. Choose your distance, near or far.

Floating elements in LF lenses? No. Think a little about the problem of telling the lens the distance at which it is focused.

For a given focal length and magnification (including ~ 0, as when the lens is focused at infinity), telephoto lenses require less extension than 'normal' lenses. The difference between tele and 'normal' is that in tele lenses, the position of the nodal points/principal planes is reversed, i.e., rear node is in front of the front node; in 'normal' lenses the rear node is behind the front node.

I put normal in quotes because, by convention, a normal lens is one whose focal length is equal to the negative's diagonal.

Hope this helps,

Dan

[Mark Sampson]

Re question #1; usually "macro" means "designed to be sharp around 1:1." I don't know of any LF lenses w/floating elements. Mechanically it would be very difficult. Bellows extension is a function of lens fl and how close you focus. There's no way around it. At 1:1, bellows extension will be 2x the marked focal length. Perhaps for this reason, some "macro" lenses are shorter than "normal" for the format- witness the Nikon 120mm AM-ED lens for 4x5. Using a wideangle lens for extreme closeups could well bring the subject within millimeters of the lens' front element. The only "macro" lens for4x5 that I have used is the Schneider 150mm f/9 G-Claron, a superb lens.

[Jim Galli]

Hi John,lenses designated "macro" by the manufacturer are simply optimized for that type of shooting. ie. near 1:1. I'm no expert, but I do know the lens designers have to pick a magnification where all 3 colors will focus on a single plane. For a macro lens this is 1:1. For general use lenses it is likely at infinity. That can be important if most or ALL of your photography is only at one place or the other.

However, that said, it doesn't render either lens useless for "other than." For instance the G-Claron mentioned above may be optimized for reproduction at or near 1:1 but there are thousands in use for everyday applications. I used a 150 G-Claron last weekend on my 8X10 camera to make a 4X10 panorama where virtually everything was at infinity because of my perch high up on a cliff. (Didn't quite cover 4X10 by the way!) At f16 1/2 that lens is incredibly sharp for that type of photography. I could enlarge those negs 6-8X and the pics would be sharp. What I'm saying is with some things you can kind of have your cake and eat it too.

Schneider G-Clarons in 150mm f9 210mm f9 would be worth considering, as would Fujinon 180mm f9 and 240mm f9. I own all four of the above and interchange them regularly for both near and far. For color things where flare might be a concern, the Fuji's may have a small edge because they are both multi-coated where the G-Clarons are single coated.

[Jerry Flynn]

With respect to your question about the specific orchid, remember that 1:1 on 4X5 is going to be different from 1:1 on 35mm.

The 35mm frame is 24X36mm and will crop in on the ceter of the flower. On 4X5, the flower will be fairly large on the ground glass with a little space around it -- about an eith of an inch. 1:1 on an 8X10 will show a lot more space around the blossom. The elements of the flower will all be the same size on the respective negatives, however.

I think someone has already mentioned that 1:1 happens when the lens is extended to twice its focal length. That means the longest lens you could use with 272mm of bellows draw is 136mm.

[Jerry Flynn]

That's "center" and "eighth". I depend way too much on my spell checker.

[heidis]

Hi John,

I do a lot of flower shooting (especially orchids) and while most of the time I use medium format, I happened to use 4x5 a few days ago

I don't have a large format macro lens, so I used a Schneider 110XL, which allowed plenty of magnification (my bellows has 590mm extension), although I didn't use anything close to that...the largest magnification I used was a little over 2:1. The results were sharp, but less so under a 6x loupe than the results that I get from medium format (Contax 645 with 120mm macro and Fuji GX680, which doesn't have a dedicated macro lens but allows close focus with any of its lenses...they are astoundingly sharp).

Obviously, the magnification that you need will depend on whether you want to frame several blossoms, a single blossom, or part of a blossom. I usually frame for the latter, so you'll want capability of doing up to 3:1 or so. Prepare to stop down a lot for DOF at this magnification!

Many examples on my website - www.dannyburk.com - "Flower Portraits" gallery

Best regards, Danny

[Tom Perkins]

John--While I am certainly no expert, I did take a similar shot with a Walker Titan and a Schneider 135 Symmar lens a couple of weeks ago, of some new leaf growth, about the same dimensions as you describe. The extra bellows were handy, and, at that extension, there was not any unpleasant distortion, at least to my eye. Good luck in your decision making. I think you will be pleased no matter what you get. Tom

[Dave_958]

For macro lens selection, I would recommend you talk to Bob Salomon of HP Marketing. He has often commented on what lens is best for 1:1 images. He says that you will see a distinct improvement in resolution and saturation in side by side comparison if you use what the manufacturer markets as a macro lens (120 or 180 mm) than a process lens, such as Apo-Ronar or Claron G, when taking images of three dimensional objects; the process lens are optimized for copying flat plane objects at 1:1. There is something else to consider. If you are choosing between Rodenstock N and S series of lenses, he says that the S series provides better resolution. For a universal lens that is both compact and lightweight, capable of focus at infintiy and closeups, the process lenses are very popular among field photographers. The widest aperture f-stop is f9 among process lenses. In the bulkier macro lenses, you can get a f5.6 that aids focusing in dim light. For camera selection, I recommend you flip through the latest View camera issue, in which Jack Dykinga (a famed photographer) discusses the Arca Swiss and Wista. He favors the approximate 3 lb Wista for expeditions and the 6 lb (est.) Arca-Swiss for short trips. The Arca Swiss is to photography as Harvard is to education.

[Struan Gray]

The macro lenses that Bob S recommends are undoubtedly good lenses, but the idea that a lens optimised for flat objects is somehow worse for three-dimensional subjects is bure marketing speak. The only exception is when the field curvature of the non-flat field lens is optimised to a known, curved subject or film plane, as in some aerial mapping lenses.

In theory, optimising a lens so that it has a flat field will increase other aberrations. In practice, and especially once you take into account the finite resolution of film, the differences are of no consequence to photographers. If chosing a lens from the specs, the reproduction ratio for which it is optimised is ovewhelmingly the most important feature.