Lens for 4x5 close-up ( macro )

[ian_kie]

I'm plannig to do lots of 4x5 floral works and thinking whether I should get a macro lens for this.

I have 2 lenses now , a 90/5.6xl and a APO-Symmar 180/5.6.

I wonder how these two lenses perform let's say from 1:3 to 3:1 macro works.

and compare with macro lenses like makro-symmar or G-Claron on 16x20 B&W prints.

would there be huge difference?

coz G-claron is bargain second-hand here

I'm thinking to get one if it outperform much better than my two lenses .

 

 

thanks very much : )

[paul_owen]

You can still find the Nikon 120mm macros around at great prices - superb lenses!

[ronald_moravec1]

I did some comparisons with 210 G Claron and 180 Rodenstock Sironar 5.6. on small

objects. No difference.

 

If I did critical lens test target, I probably would see it. But real world, no.

 

An enlarging lens is actually a flat field macro, and a 150 would work as well as anything.

Reverse mount for small items.

 

Because of the bellows extension, an 80 mm enlarging lens will cover 4x5 at 1:1. Try

what you have.

[bob_salomon]

For your application a true macro like the 120mm or 180mm Apo Macro Sironar would give

the best results from 3:1 to 1:3 of three dimensional subjects like flowers. Especially in the

edges and corners of the scene.

[brucecahn]

The G Claron is not as good as the current Rodenstock and Schneider macros. The difference is very apparent. I have had a few of these, bought when funds were low, and was disappointed in both.

[frankz]

Take a few shots and see if the result meets your standards. That's the only real way to select a lens for any particular job. In the past, I've used lenses that by no means were designed for what I did with them and got some really pretty shots; conversely, I've gotten poor results from recommended lenses. Your eyes, your art.

[kelly_flanigan1]

With a digital 4x5 phase one scan back here we use a 135mm F5.6 Schneider Componon at about F11; sometimes F16. Its resolution exceeds the 35 megapixel scan backs needs. A 150mm F9 apo ronar is used sometimes too. These are used as barrel lenses; the scan back is the effective shutter. With a 3d oblect dof is small when using these longer lenses.

[michael_briggs2]

I once did a comparison of a Fuji-NWS and a G-Claron, at 1:several. For the Fuji, only the very central portion of the image was usable for focusing wide open because the rest was too soft. But stopped down to taking aperture, the results were indistinguishable on the film. The difference would probably be larger at higher magnifications. For a thick subject such as flowers, if you will be stopping down heavily for depth of field, that will be a equalizer between lenses.

[ian_kie]

thanks for all the responds.

 

Michael,

I wonder if the depth of field is different between normal lens and macro lens

when doing macro works.

they should be the same, right?

 

Bob,

so you think there is a major difference between macro and non-macro lens

when doing 1:3~3:1?

I am not able to do the test myself.

is there any information about this that I can look into ?

 

thanks a lot

[daniel_smith6]

As Bob posted, there IS a difference. The macro lenses are optimized for this type of work. This is the reason that most who specialize in macro in this range use macro lenses. In head to head testing of fine jewelry with the 210 Macro Sironar and the non macro (8x10 chromes) the macro lens was noticeably better. Testing done with lenses supplied by Adolph Gasser photo store in San Francisco.

 

Buy the tool designed to do the job right and end the doubts as you shoot for the next century.

[kelly_flanigan1]

An enlarging lens is well corrected for macro useage. Its often the lens not marketed too much because they can be bought at a song on Ebay; often 1/2 dozen of them for the cost of a new lens. Its the lens many of us with digital 4x5 backs have used for over a decade for still commerical work. Even the pre WW2 Kodak 2D 5x7 camera's lens the old #70 Kodak Anastigmat F7.7 8 inch lens is great for macro work; its about/is a symmetrical design. The post war coated 203mm Ektar F7.7 is basically the same lens rebadged; with a tad of QA pixie dust:) <BR><BR>Many fine enlarging lenses were made in shuttered versions for the graphic arts market; the pickle here is the shutters were often only used for grey scale images; ie faster film. Often the shutters were left open; as a barrel lens; an thus the shutters often saw little if any usage and thus are require a major CLA.<BR><BR>With a digital back one can do prescans and null/back out the focus; and get it spot on. One eliminates the ground glass to film plane tolerances. <BR><BR>Depth of field is small with a 4x5 doing macro work. Stopping down radically is going to quash any so called betterment with a new trick lens of day; since defraction boxes in the overall performance. <BR><BR>With jewelry; ones energy is normally directed in the layout, style and lighting, not worrying about subtle lens differences that are not measurable.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Making a 16x20 from a 4x5 is not taxing. You are at a whopping probably 4.5X enlargement with a tad of cropping. Thats in the same 4x enlargement league as a 4x6" print off a 35mm disposable camera; which can be great even with a single element plastic lens. To get 7 line pairs per mm on that 16x20" print; that maps to about 32 on the 4x5 negative for a 4.5 X enlargement. This is roughly a diffraction limited F50 lens at infinity; maybe one set to F22 working say at 1:1. These are all squawking, throw around slide rule numbers, abit like throwing gasoline on the fire numbers. In printing one often does seat of the pants calculations like this; a customer will have their nickers in a knot; when the problem will not show up in the print.

[bob_salomon]

Yes enlarging lenses can be used for macro by reverse mounting them. Rodenstock

makes a ring to do this. Then you need a #1 shutter with a Leica 39mm screw thread to

mount the revered lens into. Don't forget to tape over the illuminated aperture input port

on the bottom of the lens.

 

This is an excellent way to shoot duplicate slides, coins, stamps, currency, etc. head-on.

It is an inferior and less convenient way to shoot 3 dimensional macros of flowers.

Especially if you are trying to throw extra light in to the scene or otherwise need room

between the lens and the subject.

[mitch_feinberg]

Ian -

 

I've worked with many of the longer lenses mentioned here. My two cents: enlarging lenses are a relative nuisance to work with and not superior to macro shooting lenses. I prefer to use a Nikkor 210 AM for macro work. It produces sharp images without too much contrast, and handles high f/stops quite well. I also like the 240 or 300 Ronars for close-up work, although both start to loose sharpness above 2:1. The Schneider Makro-Symmar HM 180 is very sharp and can go over 2:1, but is suffers from noticeable diffraction over f/22.5, making it somewhat useless. The Ronars and the Nikkor produce acceptable images at f/45.5, although images from all three lenses are obviously not as sharp at f/45.5 as at f/22.

 

I recommend testing the lens you want to purchase before committing. I have found that lenses are manufactured within surprisingly wide tolerances. Make sure to shoot at different magnifications, say 1:3, 1:1 and 3:1, and at different f/stops (I test at f/22, 45 and 64).

 

Good luck,

 

- Mitch

[dan_fromm2]

Mitch, what can one learn by shooting at 3:1 and f/64? I mean, the effective aperture will be f/256. One might as well use a pinhole ... Come to think of it, f/22 and f/45 set aren't much better.