macro/Luminar

[emile_de_leon9]

Does any one know any details of the Zeiss Luminar lenses? Which

ones work best with 4x5 or 6x9 or 5x7 at 1 to 1 or greater?

Thanks.

[dan_fromm2]

To learn enough to ask the right question, go to http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/microlen.htm

[donald_brewster]

They all work at 4x5 and all work at far better than 1:1

[pete_andrews]

The Luminars have a coverage angle of about 40 degrees, so if you multiply the focal length of the lens by m+1, then you'll get some idea of the image circle diameter at a particular magnification.<br>You can see from this rule-of-thumb that none of the Luminars listed on Willem Markerink's page will cover 5x4 at 1:1.<p>IMHO any good quality enlarging lens, mounted reversed, will perform almost as well as these specialist macro lenses. For instance; an 80 mm Componon-S or El-Nikkor will give excellent quality at 1:1 and greater, and easily cover 5x4 at that magnification.

[pete_andrews]

<i>"..none of the Luminars listed on Willem Markerink's page.."</i> -Sorry!<br>That should have read, only ONE of the Luminars (the 100mm f/6.3).... will cover 5x4 @ 1:1.

[david_goldfarb]

I've compared those enlarging lenses to a Canon FD 35/2.8 Macrophoto in medium format, and the specialized lens is astonishingly better in contrast. Not too many people know about the FD 35mm and 20mm Macrophoto lenses, so they can often be found for around $125-150 US. They come in RMS thread just like the Luminars and Leitz Photars, with a Canon FD adapter. I've posted comparison shots in this article:

 

http://www.usefilm.com/articles/large_format_lens_adaptations/index.php

 

Scroll down almost to the end.

[dhananjay_n]

Interesting article, David. I just wanted to point out that while the pictures provides useful data, its probably not conclusive. First, the enlarging lenses are not being used at their optimum magnification ratios (the 75mm is probably optimized for 4X-6X, while the 50mm is probably optimized for 8X or so) - the macro lens at 4X is probably closer to its optimum conjugates. Also, did you control the development of all negatives to be the same - lighting and development can affect contrast considerably. It's interesting data but my experience parallels Pete's. I haven't done the kind of tests you have but have shot a fair bit of macro with reversed enlarging lenses on LF and the results have always been pretty darn good. Alright, LF is forgiving of a heck of a lot of sins and I've not actually run a controlled test comparing differnet lenses, but the reversed enlarging lens does seem pretty robust. Cheers, DJ

[david_goldfarb]

Agreed. Those three images are side by side on the same roll. If I were making the images for their own sake, rather than as a test, I would have optimized development and lighting for the lens. In this case, I was interested in comparing the lenses, all other things being equal.

 

On the other hand, if I wanted to get 5x-10x with the 50mm and 75mm enlarging lenses, I would have needed lots more bellows extension than with the 35mm micro lens--reasonable for 4x5" or larger, but not so much so in medium format, which I was shooting for the article.

[bob_salomon]

Linhof offered 5 Luminars for use on either their 45 or 69 cameras in

conjuction with the older style Macro Lensboard and shutter (this is the one

that DOES NOT accept 39mm Leica thread lenses but needed adapters for

the various Luminars as their screw thread varied. There was a ring for the 16

to 63mm Luminars and a second ring for the 100mm.

 

The following Luminars were offered. 100mm 6.3 for 1:1 to 4.1:1 on a Master

Technika 45. 63mm 4.5 for 2.2:1 to 6.7:1 on a Master Technika 45. 40mm 4.5

for 3.6:1 to 12:1 on a Master Technika 45. 25mm 3.5 for 7.5:1 to 19:1on a

Master Technika 45. 16mm 2.5 for 16:1 to 32:1 on a Master Technika 45.

 

Other magnifications would apply for other cameras.

 

The Macro Lensboard and shutter had a tapered cone the shutter was

mounted to to allow for lighting close to the axis and to add both a bit of

extension and to keep the mass of the front of the camera slightly away from

the subject.

 

These were popular lenses on the 45 cameras for several decades and were

replaced with the M Componon lenses (also now out of production) when the

Luminars were discontinued by Zeiss.

[emile_de_leon9]

Thanks all!!! All the information appreaciated and extremely helpful!!!

[pete_andrews]

David: The contrast difference between the 35mm FD lens and the longer enlarging lenses is most likely due to the far greater image circle of the Componon and El-Nikkor over the Canon lens. A larger image circle will cause more flare inside the camera and bellows, reducing the contrast drastically.<br>I bet if you fitted a compendium hood to the enlarging lenses, to clip all but the image field, the difference in contrast would be much less.<p>Anyway, the original question was about using LF at magnifications around 1:1, which your 35mm Canon lens, and most other 'micro' lenses, won't cover.<br>I still think that a 75 to 105mm enlarging lens is a good solution to this problem, by providing more than sufficient coverage for 5x4, while still not requiring an excessive bellows extension.

[david_goldfarb]

Valid point, but there isn't much room for a compendium hood in most macro situations beyond 1:1. The best one can do usually is to flag stray light with a black card to reduce reflective flare, but this doesn't restrict the image circle in the way a compendium hood can.