Inexpensive Macro Lens for 4x5

[art_major]

<p>Hello,<br>

<br />Im looking for a cheap Macro lens for 4x5. I just purchased a 150mm G-Claron for close up work, but it seems to get a close as my 150mm APO Sironar-S. bummer. I know of the nikkor and rodenstock 120mm macros, but dont really want to spend so much money on a specialized lens. Im looking for a lens with a huge magnification. Would a Tominon or Ysarex lens work well?<br>

thank you in advance.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>The Claron and the Sironar are both symmetrical designs, and they have a flange focal distance of about the same as their focal length. So it's no surprise you got the same magnification out of them, but the Claron is probably a bit better corrected for close distances.</p>

<p>If you want more magnification, you have two choices. First is to put on more extension, which means a longer bellows. (Another way to do this would be to get a lens with true telephoto design, which would let you get more effective extension out of your bellows, but a telephoto's probably not going to work that well as a macro lens.)</p>

<p>Your second approach is to use a lens of shorter focal length. If it was me, cheap SOB that I am, I would first try my 80mm or 100mm enlarging lenses reversed, rather than dropping the money on something like a Makro-Sironar. Alternatively, some folks say the Tominons are very good but I have not used one. A few people here like Dan Fromm know a great deal about specialized macro lenses for technical photography. If he doesn't respond to this thread, send him a message through photo.net.</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Art, I've already typed what I have to add. You can read it here:</p>

 

<p >English:</p>

<p ><a href="http://www.galerie-photo.com/1-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html" target="_blank">http://www.galerie-photo.com/1-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://www.galerie-photo.com/2-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html" target="_blank">http://www.galerie-photo.com/2-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://www.galerie-photo.com/3-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html" target="_blank">http://www.galerie-photo.com/3-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p >French:</p>

<p ><a href="http://www.galerie-photo.com/1-optiques-6x9-dan-fromm.html" target="_blank">http://www.galerie-photo.com/1-optiques-6x9-dan-fromm.html</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://www.galerie-photo.com/2-optiques-6x9-dan-fromm.html" target="_blank">http://www.galerie-photo.com/2-optiques-6x9-dan-fromm.html</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://www.galerie-photo.com/3-optiques-6x9-dan-fromm.html" target="_blank">http://www.galerie-photo.com/3-optiques-6x9-dan-fromm.html</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Short version, you've been given good advice re adding extension if you want to use a 150 or getting a shorter lens if you don't want to add extension. I don't adore MP-4 Tominons but they're not bad and are very cost-effective. Sorry, I have no experience with MP-3 Ysarons.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >IMO reversed enlarging lenses are somewhat of a crapshoot but they can do what you want. In the Schneider scheme of things, Comparons (tessar types) are best for magnifications from 1:1 - 1:6, Componons (jes' plain, -S) are better for higher magnifications. Crapshoot because of mounting and performance issues. I have a couple of Comparons, they're ok. My preferred lens in the range 1:8 - 2:1 is a 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar mounted normally, i.e., rear to film. These are very hard to find.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >You wrote that you want "a lens with a huge magnification." This indicates limited understanding of how to get the magnification and of the limits of what can be done. You should spend money on books before buying gear. I recommend:</p>

<p > <br>

Lefkowitz, Lester. 1979. The Manual of Close-Up Photography. Amphoto. Garden City, NY. 272 pp. ISBN 0-8174-2456-3 (hardbound) and 0-8174-2130-0 (softbound).</p>

<p>Gibson, H. Lou. Close-Up Photography and Photomacrography. 1970. Publication N-16. Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY. 98+95+6 pp. The two sections were published separately as Kodak Publications N-12A and N-12B respectively. Republished in 1977 with changes and without the 6 page analytic supplement, which was published separately as Kodak Publication N-15. 1977 edition is ISBN 0-87985-206-2.</p>

<p>Lefkowitz is very good on how to do it and how to think about it, Gibson is absolutely terrifying on what can't be done.</p>

<p>If anyone recommends <em>anything</em> John Shaw has written, ignore the recommendation. Shaw is a fine photographer but a terrible teacher. Heather Angel (1987 (revised, originally published in 1983). Book of Close-Up Photography. Originally published by Ebury, London. Revised edition published by A. A. Knopf Inc. 168 pp. ISBN 0394532325) does the John Shaw thing much better than he does.</p>

<p>Buy at least Lefkowitz and study it before doing more.</p>

[art_major]

<p>thank you for your replies. Ill test out a tominon or ysarex, since they are about $50. What focal length should I be looking for? I would like to to have enough bellows draw, I have a Master Technika, roughly 400mm extension. thanks.</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>How much magnification do you want?</p>

<p>Get the Lefkowitz book, look up the magic formula that relates focal length and magnification to extension and then you'll be able to make a rational decision.</p>

<p>Polaroid offered more than one focal length of Tominon for the MP-4. Follow the links and read about them.</p>

[georges_giralt]

<p>Hello !<br>

If you own a medium format camera give a try to the lens it has.<br>

A 80 mm from Hasselblad (Zeiss) or Mamiya will cover 4x5 at 1:1 magnification and you'll be surprised by the results...<br>

Just my 2 cents...</p>

[art_major]

<p>Hey Dan,</p>

<p>thanks for the book suggestion, but thats what photo.net is for! im looking to get a 1:5 - 1:10 magnification. I want to photograph a gold nugget to cover close to a 4x5 frame. im looking at a tominon or ysarex 75mm or 105mm. are their any other lenses to look for?</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Art, you don't know enough to spend money safely. Curb your enthusiasm, buy the damned book, learn how to calculate what focal length will let you get 10:1 with your camera, do the calculation and only then start shopping.</p>

<p><strong>Very strong hint:</strong> when you do the arithmetic you'll find that 10:1 is impossible with a 75 mm lens and 400 mm of extension. So is 5:1. While waiting for the book to come -- you should be able to find copies via abebooks.com, alibris.com, amazon.com, ... -- jump in a lake. If there's no lake handy frequent cold showers will have to do.</p>

<p>Not quite so strong hint: do some searching on MP-4 Tominons. Find out what focal lengths were offered, what's needed to use one, ... I think my lens diary's section one explains it.</p>

<p>Georges, good thought but the OP's camera won't give him what he says he wants with an 80 mm lens. If you don't already have it, you might enjoy reading Lefkowitz. I found him a good guide and, in a very low-key way, quite inspiring.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[jim_jones3]

<p>Before spending money on lenses, do the math to see if you can get enough depth of field for micro shots of a three-diminsional subject. </p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Jim, the OP wants to shoot from 5:1 to 10:1. Math isn't needed to calculate DoF at those magnifications, there is none.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>Just buy yourself a copy lens from Surplus Shack. Usually 209mm (8-1/4") f4.5 to f8(or f16). Perfect for macro without expense.</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Tom, please read the thread from the top. The OP stated that his camera has 400 mm extension and that he wants to shoot from 5:1 to 10:1. How can he do that with his camera and a 209 mm lens.</p>

<p>Art, Tom's post is typical of photo.net. Nice person, good intentions, advice that's badly off-target.</p>

[michael_briggs2]

<p>The focusing equation is in the Lens Tutorial, http://www.photo.net/photo/optics/lensTutorial. From this you can figure out the magnification as a function of focal length and extension.</p>

<p>Reversed enlarging lenses work well in the true macro domain. I have used El-Nikkors and Rodenstocks. There are past threads on this topic, with information about off-the-shelf adapter rings for reversing. Try using the photo.net search.</p>

[drew bedo]

<p>A number of years ago I got ahold of an ocilloscope lense, an Ilex Ocillo Raptar.0 This is a 75mm f1.9 lens designed to image the face of an ocilloscope tube at 1:1 reproduction from a few inches away. They do <strong><em>not</em></strong> cover 4x5 at infinity. At extension they do.The cost then was minimal ($10?) but now sell for more on *bay but still cheap. Ilex #3 shutter stops down from f 1.9 to f16 and goes from T/B to 250th if I remember right.</p>

<p>I put one on my 8x10 and cranked it out. The wide-open max aperature was great for focusing and I coveresd a 8x10 with a two inch pocket watch. I left the shutter open in a darkened room and used multiple pops of my flash set up. It sounds crazy and is not name-brand glass but they are cheap enough for you to see it it will work for you.</p>

[ivan_j._eberle1]

<p>Dan is quite correct. 5:1 to 10:1 is almost photo-microscopy. You'll not be doing this cheaply or easily in 4x5, and even if you could, the resulting image may be no better blown up huge (or actually worse) than one done from a smaller format. Research the subject of "diffraction" in the context of macro.<br>

There are some things for which smaller formats excel and this is one of them. DSLR image stacking is now the commonplace method to get macro-focus results as impressive as the electron microscope images I remember so well as a kid growing up in the 60's and 70's.<br>

Still, it will not be cheap nor particularly easy. Illuminating gold satisfactorily at that extreme magnification could prove as much of a challenge as going 10:1.</p>

[drew bedo]

<p>Dan: Your remarks seem to apply to me too . . . didn’t read the whole thread first. I have done some macro for fun, but I am by no means deeply knowledgeable on 1:1 and larger photography. Sorry for wasting bandwidth.</p>

 

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Drew, I'm not wildly enthusiastic getting an education from bulletin boards. You just stubbed a toe on one of the reasons. Posters often jump into the middle of a discussion, respond to what they see on the screen they're at instead of to what they don't see. </p>

<p>All this with the best of intentions and a sincere desire to be helpful. We all know where a road paved with the best of intentions can go ...</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>OK. Let's work this back from the 400mm extension available. 5:1 needs a 5.2x focal length extension, so that limits you to a 75mm lens maximum, while 10:1 needs around a 40mm lens. One lens won't cover all that magnification range because 40mm will probably be too short to cover 5"x4" at a 5:1 mag. Also the available lens-subject distance is only going to be ~ 83mm and 44mm respectively. So are you sure that 5"x4" is really the right format to be using in this instance?</p>

<p>Without spending an absolute fortune on a true macro lens, IMHO the only economic option is to use a reversed enlarging lens. For 5:1 the 75mm El-Nikkor would be a good choice, but for 10:1 you can choose between 40mm WA-Componon (rare and comparatively expensive); 40mm WA Hoya or a 35mm Rogonar. Most of these lenses can now be bought for a song, and if you use flash for illumination you don't even have to fit them into a shutter. Just use a lenscap and open-flash technique.</p>

<p>Or make life easier for yourself and simply use your LF camera as a bellows unit with a rollfilm back or 35mm camera body attached to it.</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>Dan, et al: Ok, misread that ratio as being the other way around. Sorry.</p>

<p>Ok, here is some good advice then no one can refute. Try a Wollensak Micro-Raptar lens. I have one in 50/4.5 but there are others. In fact, you might want to try a Micro lens from Canon or Nikon which I believe are P mount(?) for bellows only. Seem to recall one was 38mm (Canon?).</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>People, I had a reason for suggesting MP-4 Tominons instead of a reversed enlarging lens. Several, in fact.</p>

<p>MP-4 Tominons are in barrel, screw directly into a #1 shutter. The shutter of choice is the MP-4 Copal Press #1, which has no diaphragm and so is inexpensive because generally useless. Few if any enlarging lenses can be front-mounted, reversed or facing normally. All need an adapter to shutter. More $$$.</p>

<p>The 35/4.5 MP-4 Tominon isn't a bad lens and isn't expensive. According to Polaroid it is best from 5:1 to 14:1 and covers 4x5 at those magnifications. It is short enough to meet the OP's requirements.</p>

<p>Enlarging lenses shorter than 50 mm are mainly pretty lousy. I've tried a couple of cheap Tessar types, don't recommend them. The 30/2.8 C.E. Rokkor X that half-frame enthusiasts love may be an exception. All I know about that line is that my 80/5.6 C. E. Rokkor X was a considerable disappointment as a macro lens. You can read about the lenses I've tried out in the links I provided earlier in this thread.</p>

<p>I <em>have</em> a 50/4.5 Micro Raptar. In black enamel, with diaphragm. It is better above 10:1 than below and is too long to make 10:1 on the OP's camera. Is not a direct fit in any shutter I'm aware of.</p>

<p>There are a number of relatively short lenses for high performance photomacrography. I have a couple that might do for the OP, including a 25/3.5 Summar from a YELUU attachment for some Prado projector or other and a 25/4.5 Luminar. Leitz/Leica also offered Photars, CZJ offered Mikrotars, Nikon offered Macro Nikkors, and there are others. The 45/4.5 Mikrotar will almost meet the OP's needs and is superb. None is inexpensive, all are somewhat uncommon. I didn't suggest any of them because of their prices. Oh, yes, most if not all are in RMS mount. As with enlarging lenses, adapters are needed. Olympus made some macro lenses that were offered in RMS mount <em>and</em> in OM-mount. Again, an adapter would be needed as well as a shutter.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Apologies! I miscalculated the lens extensions in my previous post, and you'd need something slightly shorter than 75mm to get 5:1 with only 400mm of bellows. Enlarging lenses in that region include the uncommon 63mm El-Nikkor or the more common 60mm WA Hoya or 60mm Componon, and you'd definitely need a 35mm FL lens to get to 10:1 with only 400mm extension.</p>

<p>Dan - a poor lens is a poor lens, and cheap Tessar-type enlarging lenses generally are poor lenses. However there are quite a few good enlarging lenses out there in less than a 50mm FL. The one's I mentioned above are good 6 or more element pseudo-symmetrical designs (apart from the Rogonar). And is a shutter really a necessity for this kind of magnification? When the only sensible illuminant to use is flash, a shutter can be pretty optional.</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Joe, I thought I indicated that there are ok short enlarging lenses. There are, really, but most of the short enlarging/macro lenses on the used lens market are lousy. Think of all those 35 mm Spiratone thingies and their brethren. Coverage can be an issue, also finding one at a good price. And then there's a shutter and an adapter.</p>

<p>I do most of my closeup work with flash illumination, can't imagine using ambient darkness. My subjects are often a little mobile, so for me stopping motion is very important. Others may not find this is useful. Anyway, if I don't use a shutter I will get unwanted exposure from ambient. I don't know about you, but I can't focus in the dark.</p>

<p>Not to pick a fight, but Rogonars are not very good. Neither are the MP-3 and MP-4 35/4 Eurygons I've tried. I know, how well a used lens does now can have nothing to do with how good it was when first sold.</p>

[jodys]

<blockquote>

<p>im looking to get a 1:5 - 1:10 magnification. I want to photograph a gold nugget to cover close to a 4x5 frame.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let me paraphrase what everyone else has been saying, in a roundabout way: this is simply not possible, not with conventional photography techniques.</p>

<p>If this is the image you want, I know of only one way of getting it: you will be taking a series of 10-30 shots with your camera, slowly changing the focus to get a series of in-focus 'rings' around your nugget, starting with the tip closest to the camera, ending with the outline of the nugget from your point-of-view. You will then stitch all those rings together using some sort of software, to get your full-frame 1:10 gold nugget, in whatever resolution your software/puter allows you to work with. Because perspective might end up being important, I would suggest something in the 450-600mm range, you will need a camera with longer bellows though. I couldn't tell you how long, I don't bring a calculator with me when I go out shooting. Ideally, you should find a printing shop that still has the old-style horizontal-bed enlarging/reducing camera, and looking to just borrow that<em> in situ</em>, and set up your lighting there for an afternoon (or a week).</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Jody, you completely misunderstood my posts. It is entirely possible to fill a 4x5 frame with an image of a .4" x .5" subject using a camera with maximum extension of 400 mm. Doing so may not yield a pleasing image, but that isn't what we've been discussing. Getting the shot is certainly possible using conventional technique. Take the advice I gave the OP. Buy a copy of Lefkowitz' book and read it.</p>

<p>This discussion's focus has been which lens(es) the OP should consider purchasing. The lens he gets has to do the job and fit his budget. Whether he should take the picture is his decision, not mine or yours.</p>

<p>Confocal techniques won't fit the OP's budget. Another frivolous suggestion, in a thread full of 'em.</p>

<p>Since you don't know the magic formula and apparently can't do mental arithmetic, I'll tell you that shooting at 10:1 with a 600 mm lens requires 6.6m of extension. Rarely practical.</p>

[jodys]

<p>Presumably the original poster didn't want a full-frame 4x5 photo of a gold nugget that was 90% out of focus. Also, a gold 'nugget' is not the same thing as a gold 'leaf'. It's a 3-dimensional object. Now, if the original poster was ok with a picture of a gold nugget that is out of focus, except for whatever flat portion of the nugget he can work into a 2-dimensional plane, I'm going to let my suggestions stand. Including the suggestion that the proper camera to do this is a horizontal-bed printing camera, which can in fact have 20' of extension, and will probably come with several lenses of different focii mounted so as to figure out which one gives the best perspective. If you feel like attempting this with a reverse-mounted 7.5mm C-mount cine lens, knock yourself out. </p>