best choice for macro work

<p>I am shooting some macro photographs on location next week, and I'm wondering which of my lenses is the better option?<br>

I don't have time to do tests unfortunately, so I am relying on 'in principle' advice. By macro, I'm talking about 1.1 or greater. By location I mean not in a studio, and using minimal if any additional lighting. Shallow DoF is not an issue (I want that look) and the objects are generally details of flat architectural surfaces. I'll likely be shooting 4x5 T-max 100. I'm shooting with a Canham DLC, which I know is not the ideal camera for this, but it's what I've got.<br>

The lenses I have to choose from are:<br /> Nikkor SW 90mm f4.5<br /> Schneider Apo-Symmar XL 110mm f.5.6<br /> Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S 150mm f.5.6<br /> Schneider Apo-Symmar S 210mm f.5.6<br>

<br /> I realise the way to do this is to test, but I don't really have time to do thorough testing this week, and there's no point in a non-thorough test. In my subjective opinion, my 150mm or the 90mm have been the sharpest lenses for general use, but I've only recently picked up the 210 so I don't know it well, and I normally never do macro work so I've no experience with how the lenses perform in that reproduction range.</p>

<p>For a given aperture, the 210mm is going to give you narrower DoF than the 150. Either of those would be sensible subject to your desired field of view and shutter-speed.<br>

<a title="Longiflorum Lily, black and white by spodzone, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/207/497022869_8f8ca53e65_m.jpg" alt="Longiflorum Lily, black and white" width="186" height="240" /></a><br>

My first lens was a Rodenstock 210mm.</p>

<p>Oh, and remember your <a href="bellows-extension compensation factors">bellows-extension compensation factors</a>. ;)</p>

<p>Gerard, I don't mean to speak for Tim but I think what he meant was that with the longer lens you will get a narrower field of view not depth of field. At the same magnification and the same aperture all three lenses will have the same depth of field but the longer lens will give you a narrow field of view which can eliminate distracting things from the background. The flip side is that at the magnification you mentioned 1 to 1 or greater, you will need a lot more bellows extension on the longer focal length lenses than on the shorter ones to achieve the same reproduction size.</p>

<p>Wide-angle lenses are terrible (optically speaking) for close-ups. Other than a dedicated macro lens, stick to symmetric lenses with relatively short focal length (due to max. bellow extension of most view cameras), so the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S 150mm f.5.6 is probably your best bet...</p>

 

<p>Mike I agree the Rodenstock will always be a candidate, but I remember the Schneider 110 XL being highly touted for macro work when I was buying it. I am well aware of the decrease in DoF with longer lenses, bellow extension exposure compensation etc. and that the longer lenses will push the limitations of the Canham's max bellows/rail draw. I guess what I'm really asking is if there is any specific optical reason that one lens would be superior for macro work. </p>

<p><em>For a given aperture, the 210mm is going to give you narrower DoF than the 150.</em></p>

<p><em>I am well aware of the decrease in DoF with longer lenses</em></p>

<p>I do not think these statements are correct. If both lenses are used to provide 1:1 magnitication (that is, the field of view at the plane of focus is the same size as the image area on the film), they will provide the same depth of field.</p>

<p>Let's compare the 150 and the 210. For 1:1 work, by my calculations, the 150 would need a subject distance of a hair under a foot, with the bellows extended to give an actual focal length of about 301mm. Now with the 210mm, for 1:1, by my calculations, you'd need a subject distance of about 1.37 ft, with the bellows extended to give an actual focal length of about 422mm. At any given aperture, the dept of field will be the same for both lenses.</p>

<p>Also, both will have the same effective aperture. In other words, notwithstanding both lenses set to f/5.6, the exposure will need to be what you'd need for f/11 at or near infinity.</p>

<p>Bill was almost correct, correctly stating, "At the same magnification and the same aperture all three lenses will have the same depth of field", but then going on to say "the longer lens will give you a narrow field of view which can eliminate distracting things from the background," got it in my opinion just a hair wrong, because the <em>field of view</em> at the plane of focus with the same magnification will be the same; but with the greater camera-to-subject distnace the <em>angle of view</em> will be less, meaning that the field of view <em>behind the plane of focus</em> will be smaller.</p>

<p>Between the lenses, over and above issues of individual lens performace at or near 1:1, the longer the lens, the more convenient the subject-to-camera working distance, but the more likely you are to run out of bellows. On my monorail, with a 210mm lens, your maximum magnification would be about 1.07x life-size, but with a 150mm lens, it would be about 1.91x.</p>

<p>If you think my concepts or math are off, please tell me!</p>

 

<p>I specifically use the 210mm for its quality. It has been a staple of commercial product photography for years. Now days I tend to use Claron G's because of the flat field, but use the 210mm otherwise.</p>

<p>Given your situation, this may not be helpful - so my apologies. But for 1:1 or greater on 4X5, you're potentially getting into some serious bellows extension with longer focal lengths. Other limitations include the aspect of "minimal if any additional lighting," plus a relatively lightweight camera. Given these conditions, my guess is that your 110 may offer the most reasonable solution - although I'm wondering if, as you move closer than 1:1, you might fashion yourself a lens board which allows for the 110 to be mounted in reverse - which may offer some optical advantages (many lenses work better at greater than 1:1 if they are reversed). You can do this with a piece of masonite...into which you epoxy a step up ring to thread into the front of your lens.</p>

<p>Years ago, I realized some great results at greater than 1:1 on 4X5, by fashioning a lens board as mentioned above, and affixing to this a 55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor lens (designed for 35mm). With the lens mounted in reverse, I was then able to affix a shutter to the rear of the lens (now facing forward) by drilling a hole into a rear lens cap, and mounting into this a shutter from my Crown Graphic's Optar, from which I'd removed the lens cells. I then mounted this combo onto my Crown Graphic, and due to the short focal length my bellows extension requirements were very reasonable, while still allowing the lens to cover the format. </p>

<p>ps: another solution may exist in the use of an enlarging lens, granted that you still own darkroom gear. You could mount a 50mm or 100mm enlarging lens in reverse as above, mount a shutter (or have someone like Grimes do this for you for a dedicated setup), and you're in business.</p>

<p>Thanks guys for all the advice - even if it doesn't all lead to an obvious answer. The idea of reversing the lens makes lots of sense (I've done it with 35mm previously). I have several spare Copal shutters, and Rodagon enlarger lenses ranging from 50mm - 300mm, but I don't know if I can figure out how to assemble all that before next week. It's also something that I would really need to comprehensively test before relying on it. Reversing one of my regular lenses might be more feasible. <br>

Otherwise, Dave whilst you may be right in regards to your optical theories (with respect, I'm actually not sure you are right but I digress), I do tend to think that in practice the bellows extension / camera rigidity might be a bigger issue than relative DoF, and so I'm more inclined towards the 150 or the 110 lens at this point. I really believe in the 150mm, so I'll start from there.</p>