Renting a 4x5. Advice on macro lens needed!

[gan_esh]

Hi all.

 

I'll be renting a 4x5 (Toyo or Linhof) soon for an assignment

requiring macro work (action figures).

 

I've only used view cameras once before, so am pretty new to large

format.

 

I need advice on a good macro lens.

 

A friend recomended a Nikkor AM (apo makro)120mm 5.6 ed. Any other

recommendations?

 

Thanx in advance. Cheerz!

[miles_feigenbaum___dallas_]

The depth of field is extremely shallow! I shot some photos of a watch face as a practice exercise with Ellis some years ago.

[justinblack]

A Schneider 120mm Macro-Symmar HM will work equally well if you have difficulty finding

the Nikkor for rent.

[miles_feigenbaum___dallas_]

what are action figures? GI JOE? & BARBIE???

[gan_esh]

Yeah something like that.

 

A close friend of mine plans to release his own line of limited production, handmade action figures. He's a popular 'underground pop culture' artist here in Malaysia, and his action figures will be based on his artwork.

 

I plan to capture the action figures with a portrait feel to them.

 

Any advice?

[ken_lee11]

A shorter lens will deliver greater depth of focus. How about a Schneider G-Claron

150mm, or a 180mm Fujinon A ?

[mskovacs]

Depth of field is solely a function of aperture and magnification. A shorter lens will not buy you a free lunch!

[michael_briggs2]

<p>Mike is correct, a shorter lens will not give you more depth of field for the same view of the scene. (Ken wrote "depth of focus", which is the tolerance on the position the film. Probably he meant depth of field.) If you hold the camera position fixed and switch to a shorter focal length, you will have more depth of field, but you will be including more of the scene in the photo. If you then move the camera closer to the subject to restore the orginal "crop" of the subject, you will return to the dof that you had with the longer lens. (If you study the equations, there are slight variations in the depth of field with these cases.)</p>

 

<p><i>"Any advice?"</i> Particularly if you haven't done this type of photography before, I suggest taking a few Polaroid to get instant feedback on composition, focus, depth-of-field, exposure, etc. (Digital could do the same, but LF digital is likely to be a very expensive rental.) </p>

 

<p>Don't forget to increase the exposure to compensate for the increased extension of the bellows. Cameras with through-the-lens metering do this automatically for closeup photographs, but you will have to do it yourself since you will be using a handheld, external meter. To calculate the number of additional stops D_s of exposure needed, I use the equation D_s = 6.67 * log_10 (S_i / f), where S_i is the bellows extension and f is the focal length of the length (both in the same units, e.g., mm). "log_10" is the log function base 10. If you don't have a scientific calculator, browse the archives of this forum, or search the web, etc., for alternative methods.</p>

 

<p>How big are these figures? If they are a couple of inches in size, then 120 mm is probably a good focal length. If you end up making an image that is lifesize, the image-to-lens and lens-to-subject distances will both end up being twice 120 mm, i.e., 240 mm. This should give a flatttening, portrait perspective to a small object.

Even though 120 is a short lens for 4x5 (compared to the diagonal of 4x5), at 1:1 the the subject will be at a distance that is long compared to the diagonal.

Unless your camera and lights are bulky, this setup should allow space for lighting the figures. This is another reason not to go to a shorter lens -- it can get tricky to set up the lights as you wish without the camera casting shadows. If you will be photographying the objects smaller than lifesize, you might want to use a 150 or 180 mm lens.</p>

[ken_lee11]

Michael & Mike -

 

Well, I'm glad my lens recommendation was right, even though my grasp of the facts is

way off ! Thanks for the clarification !

 

<p><i>"If you hold the camera position fixed and switch to a shorter focal length, you

will have more depth of field, but you will be including more of the scene in the photo."

</i>

 

<p>There's the rub. I was confusing 2 different situations.

 

<p>Situation 1: If you shoot the same scene, from the same distance, with a 150 on a

4x5,

or a 300 on an 8x10, or a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera, the perspective will be the

same, but the 300mm lens will give you the least depth of field.

 

<p>Situation 2: As you described above: We come in closer to accommodate the

difference in magnification. A shorter lens will require less bellows draw - but once we

come in that much closer, we lose a corresponding depth of field.

[gan_esh]

Thanx for all the advice guys. Will consider all your remarks, advice and lens recommendations. Wish me luck.

 

Cheerz!

[dmin-99]

This really isn't a good application for a 4x5. You'd be better-off with a smaller format, or even (shudder) digital. Remember what's 1:1 on 4x5 with DOF measured in mm will be 1:20 on consumer digital with what will seem to be unlimited DOF.

 

Regards,

Wayne

[james___]

But using large format, a "view" camera will give you lots more options than a fixed lens camera. Depth of field will increase dramatically if you use it properly. That's what a "view camera" is designed for. Depth of field. By utilizing it properly, it won't matter which lens you use (to a point) because depth of field will be solved by the use of "movements" and "working" aperature. You don't need to use polaroids either because the ground glass never lies. Just use a good loupe, correctly use the movements the camera affords (ask us here about movements as needed), use a loupe to see exactly what you are doing, and you'll get great results. That's how macro work is done. Large format. You see all those watch adverts? Large format. All a "macro" lens is, is a lens housed in a longer barrel. The "barrel" on a view camera lens is the bellows.