What are the top macro lenses for 4x5?

I have a great first lens - a 210mm f/5.6 Sironar N-MC - but it is not a

dedicated macro lens. Could anyone recommend a really good macro lens for 4x5?

Thanks.

 

Ken

Why are you looking for a dedicated macro lens? Unless absolute sharpness is needed

from film edge to edge you don't need one. For example, shooting flowers or bugs you,

don't need a dedicated macro lens for 4x5. For shooting some product shots where

absolute sharpness is critical, then a macro lens may be needed. What are you looking to

use it for?

 

Darcy

Ken

 

I produced a gauge zero modeltrain calender , based on 4x5 format , and therefore needed a

macro lens . I got a

RODENSTOCK MACRO APO SIRONAR 5,6/120mm . This is an outstanding

lens and produces very sharp images . I can only recommend this lens .

Is there anything approaching the image quality of this lens but under $500? Thanks.

While on this answer, is a 120mm or a 180mm macro better for 4x5?

The APO-MACRO-SIRONAR 5,6/120mm is designed to be used with 4x5 whereas the

5,6/180mm is for 5x7 . The 180mm lens is also much bigger in size and heavier and also

more expensive .

Definitely the Rodenstock 120mm is the way to go for macro work, as others already said. I wouldn't get the 180mm -- besides it being heavy and for 5x7 cameras -- with macro work you also have to worry about maximum extension of your bellows, which would be a bigger issue with a longer lens...

Cheers,

Mike

Any symmetrical lens will work as a macro lens, such as the old Schneider Symmars. Or you can look for any of the old copy lenses such as G-Clarons, apo-wollensaks, apo-Ronars, etc. either in shutters or barrel (which usually can be picked up for < $100). I use a 135mm Repro-Claron, a 50+ year old design that works very well.

That's the answer I was hoping for!

<p>Ken, I recall reading somewhere that the sironar-N's are really only suitable down to around 1:10 with the S series being more suitable for table-top work at around 1:5. I recently purchased a second-hand Rodenstock APO-Ronar 240mm f/9 in Copal 1 for $200US. These are supposed to be optimised for 1:1 and I estimate it should focus down to around 28" with 360mm of belows extension providing (I think) around 1:2 reproduction on film.

<br /> 

</p>

<p>Cheers...John.

<br /> 

</p>

You can use good quality enlarging lenses for macro work as well, since they're designed for use at close conjugate focii. You may have trouble fitting one to a shutter though, unless you're prepared to use a sticky tape and Blu-tak approach (and what's wrong with that?).

 

Enlarging lenses also have the advantage that they're cheaply and readily available in focal lengths suitable for 5x4 macro work (80 to 150mm), whereas most process lenses don't come any shorter than a 210 or 240mm focal length. This means your bellows extension will be racked out to around 420mm just to get to 1:1, and if you want to go to greater magnifications you may well run out of bellows. An 80mm lens, OTOH, will easily cover 5x4 at 1:1, and at 4:1 will only need around 400mm bellows extension.

Um, Pete, 80 mm on 4x5 @ 1:1 is pushing it a little. Not impossible, but not the best idea.

 

About hanging enlarging lenses in front of shutters, IIRC there are a variety of adapters with male M29x0.5 or M40x0.75 (#0, #1) threads at one end and M39x1 or M32.5x0.5 at the other. And since you are, IIRC, in the UK you can always have SRB make the appropriate if needed. I've used tape, it isn't as secure as one would like.

 

Also, Schneider's 100-105 mm enlarging lenses' cells are threaded to go into #0 shutters. I just recently bought a Copal Press #0 that happened to have a 105/4.5 Comparon in it, got curious, and looked at Schneider's propaganda about the lens. They recommend it over the 105/5.6 Componon for enlarging between 2x and 6x (= taking at 1:2 to 1:6, 2:1 and 6:1 reversed). Who'd have thought it?

 

Lastly, minor arithmetic error. The magic formula is extension = f*(m + 1). So getting 4:1 with a 100 mm lens requires 500 mm extension.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

Yes you can use enlarging lenses but they need to be reverse mounted.

Mike, whether an enlarging lens should be reversed for use as a taking lens depends on the magnification. Enlarging lenses are optimized for small negative behind, large print in front. This is equivalent to taking lenses for magnifications less than 1:1's optimization. Both should be reversed for small subject in front, large negative behind, that is, for reductions and photomacrography.

I'd back up the nomination of the G-Claron. Mine is a 150mm.

 

Your lens should work great for macro too, but requires a bit more extension... probably too much, without buying a bellows extension.

The Nikkor-AM 120ED f5.6 is also a fine macro lens for 4x5. They appear on a pretty regular basis on Ebay for reasonable prices.

Good luck,

Dave B.

I see that this lens is highly rated. Two questions: This lens comes with a Copal 0 shutter. I have an Omega 45D. 1) Specifically, what lens boards can I use? and 2) How do I mount the shutter to the lens board?

Just a couple of thoughts--

 

1. It sounds like you are just doing some copy type work using your enlarger, so you'll probably need a fairly short lens to get to 1:1. Keep that in mind when picking your focal length since the bellows of your enlarger is probably not as long as some available on view cameras.

 

2. When picking a focal length for a three dimensional object, keep in mind that perspective will change as you get closer, so having a longer focal length is often very beneficial.

 

Other than that, the symmetrical process type lenses will serve well as macros as well as general purpose lenses (albeit a bit on the slow side), but the modern apo designs which are sometimes not symmetrical will also work very well withn their design range. Slower lenses (f/8 & smaller) are better corrected and thus perform better in macro mode as well as at infinity.

With the 4x5 scan back, I often use a 135mm F5.6 Schneider Componon enlarging lens, or 150mm F9 Apo Ronar process lens. The ancient 203mm F7.7 Ektar is also corrected well closeup too.

Dan. Since the effective focal length of an 80mm lens at 1:1 is 160mm, then why should it be a problem covering 5x4? After all, you don't often need to use any lens shift when doing macro work.

 

Also (m+1)f works out at exactly 400mm with an 80mm lens at 4:1.

 

But thanks for pointing out that a 100mm Componon-S fits into a No. 0 shutter. I didn't know that, and d'you know, I'd never even tried it. However my example of 100mm Componon-S isn't easy to get apart, and since I use it for enlarging regularly, and for macro very infrequently, I think I'll stick to jamming it into an old Alphax shutter when I want to use it on the camera.

 

Lastly, one more reason to use an enlarging lens rather than a process lens. Enlarging lenses have a maximum aperture of f/5.6 or even f/4, whereas process lenses are f/8 or f/9. This makes a big difference to the screen brightness when focusing at macro scales.

Pete, In the repro/copy/printing market many Componon focal length ranges were available in shutter. They show up on Ebay at times. These were variants made for copy cameras. With ortho films one usually just used timed lamps with the shutters on B ot T. For tonal work one usually used the leaf shutter. Often theses shutters saw little usage, its common for the shutters to have corrosion problems; ie sticking. I graphics arts ones shutter would hang during a tonal exposure, one typically exercised it to de-crud it. Folks on photo.net will ask how to place a Componon into shutter, or whether its actually possible, or say its impossible; when there is one on Ebay currently with no bids.! It seems what was marketed to the graphics arts market is not so widely known on photo.net, or even the lens/shutter makers historical web sites. Here I have used 80, 135, 150 and 210mm Componon in shutter before.

For closeup work with models, using some tilt is often used for a greater DOF

A key issue to think about is what is the typical size object that you wish to photograph? Are you doing true macro, closeups, or table top (product) photography? This determines your reproduction ratio, and, given the focal length of the lens, the bellows extension required and the working distance in front of the lens. If you select a focal length that is too short, you might have trouble lighting the subject because of inadequate working distance, and if the subject is 3D, the perspective might look peculiar. If you select a focal length that is too long, your camera might not have enough extension to focus on as small of a subject as you wish.

 

The relevant equations are the photo.net Lens Tutorial.

 

The newer "macro" lenses are convenient for their faster max aperture and typically wider coverage. If you are only photographying flat documents, the coverage won't matter, but if you will be doing tabletop photography, the coverage will allow you do use tilts and swings to place the plane of focus. Some of the process lenses have more coverage than others, e.g., G-Clarons. As you focus closer, the diameter of coverage increases, so this issue is most important for moderate rather than exterme closeups.

 

There are alot of past discussions in the archives on macro lenses. Trying searching, or browsing, looking for the words "macro" or "closeup", or names of lenses that you are considering.

 

 

"This lens comes with a Copal 0 shutter. I have an Omega 45D. 1) Specifically, what lens boards can I use? and 2) How do I mount the shutter to the lens board?"

 

You need a lensboard for your camera with a hole for a Copal 0 shutter, i.e., 35 mm. Then here are some past threads about mounting the lens:

 

"Help mounting new lens on board" at http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0090M8

 

"Mounting lens on lensboard - could a beginner do that?" at http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003k3c

 

"mounting lens and shutter" at http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DclT

 

and "Help with mounting a lens" at http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Ev3Q

 

 

"Slower lenses (f/8 & smaller) are better corrected and thus perform better in macro mode as well as at infinity." I think this is a dubious generalization. The classic f9 process lenses were exceptionally corrected for their time, but lens design has progressed in the almost one century since those designs were made, so we shouldn't count on the slower designs being necessarily superior. For example, the f5.6 AM-ED Nikkors use 8 elements in 4 groups, compared to the 4 elements of the classic dialyte design (Apo-Ronar, etc.), so the lens designer has more design freedoms. And the AM-ED Nikkors use Extra-Low Disperson glass to reduce chromatic aberration, a glass type which wasn't available when the classic designs were introduced.

 

A generalization that does tend to work is that symmetrical designs do well at both macro and infinity, while non-symmetrical designs typically suffer far from their designed reproduction ratio. A non-symmetrical design can be difficult to focus far enough from its intended usage. But at taking aperture, it still might perform well.