lens for closeups

[andrew_goliszek]

I would like to do large format closeup photography (flowers, still

life, etc.) Which lens would the experts out there say would be a

good all around closeup lens. Thanks.

 

Andy

[steve_levine]

Any lens can be used for LF close up work,as long as your bellows can extend far enough to double the focal length.Remember to adjust for bellow factor.

[deniz_merdan]

I mostly use my 127mm ektar for around 1:2 to 1:1 and 210mm Commercial Komura for 1:3 and up on my crown graphic.

[capocheny]

Hi Andrew,

<p>

I do exactly the kind of shooting you enjoy... my favorite lens for this purpose is a

240 f5.6. I also use a 360 Symmar f6.8 on occassions. The 360 requires that you have

extra long arms and a long, long bellows. You'll most likely require lots of "pops" too

since long bellows requires compensation.

<p>

Hope this helps...

<p>

Cheers

[john_randall3]

Hi Andrew,

 

If you intend to shoot 1:1 (lifesize or close) you might consider a large format

lens that has been optimized for closeups. Schneider, Nikon, and Rodenstock

all make these, either in 120mm, 180mm, or 210mm. The 120's tend to be the

least expensive in the used market - and the most prevalent.

 

To reduce the needed bellows extension (usually double the focal length of

the lens you are using), you can mate your lens of choice with a two-element

Canon 250-D or 500-D Closeup lens.

 

A ringlight flash attached to the front of your lens will help you when you are

shooting wildflowers. The breeze blows. The flowers wiggle...

 

Hope this helps - and good shooting.

 

Best regards,

[harry_akiyoshi]

Schneider's G-Clarons are pretty decent. I use a 150mm on my 4x5, and I'd recommend it highly if you're on a budget. Mint ones go for about $300. F/9 is a little on the slow side, but it does make for a very compact lens.

 

If you have a little more cash to throw around, there are some excellent large-format macro optics from the major manufacturers. They're all pretty much stunningly good, at least in the current generation, so don't worry too much about which one you buy.

[michael_briggs2]

<p>The answer depends somewhat on precisely what you mean by closeup: imaging an object a few times larger than 4x5 (I am guessing that you want advise for 4x5), or lifesize images, or larger than lifesize images. These are reproduction ratios of 1:few, 1:1 and few:1. Are you planning only studio work, or some outdoors? Natural light outdoor closeups can be tricky with LF because the exposure times can be long and subject motion a problem.</p>

 

<p>Once you have decided what range of reproduction ratios that you want, you want to pick a focal length for which your camera has sufficient bellows, for which the working distance to the subject is convenient, and for which the lens will cover 4x5 film.</p>

 

<p>Previous threads have discussed magnification vs focal length vs bellows needed. The equations are on the photo.net Lens Tutorial

at <a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/lensTutorial">http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/lensTutorial</a>. These equations will also give you the lens-to-subject distance. If this is too small, lighting may be a problem, e.g., your camera may cast shadows on the subject. If too long, a surprising amount of space may be needed.</p>

 

<p>For 1:few, focal lengths from 150 to 210 mm are probably the best choice for 4x5. For 1:1, you could move to 120 mm. As you focus on a closer object, the lens moves from the film and the coverage gets better. For 1:few, the coverage might be tight with a 120 mm lens. For large than lifesize, 120 mm or shorter would do this trick -- but this is more difficult because of the long exposures and the very shallow depth-of-field.</p>

 

<p>For all closeups, remember to calculate the exposure correction for bellows extension.</p>

 

<p>If closeups are your main emphasis, it would be best to get a lens designed for this purpose. The optical design is optimized for a certain reproduction ratio. Symmetrical lenses are automatically optimized for 1:1. I used a normal lens (designed for distant objects) once for about 1:1 and it gave a good image on the film but was difficult to focus because the image at maximum aperture was soft.</p>

 

<p>Lens choices: symmetrical f9 lenses like the Schneider G-Clarons or Fuji-A. Faster symmetrical lenses like the Makro-Symmar-HM or AM-ED Nikkkor. The Rodenstock Apo-Macro-Sironar lenses are optimized for 1:2.</p>

 

<p>A recent thread: <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007GTR">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007GTR</a>. There are other threads in the archive on this subject.</p>

[wayne_crider4]

From alot of reading done recently, the 203 Ektar does very well for closeups

and is quite sharp even wide open. Another good choice is the Artar's. I own

the Ektar myself but can't report anything yet as I am testing it now.

[dave_s]

Enlarging lenses make great macro lenses, if you can work around the fact that they (generally) don't have shutters. You probably already have a 150mm enlarging lens, and if it has a LTM and a LTM lockring, it should fit nicely on a board with a #1 hole.

[mark_steigelman1]

A reversed 50mm or shorter enlarging lens works even better.

[michael_briggs2]

<p>Yes, enlarging lenses are well corrected for reproductions of 1:few. A few decades ago enlarging lenses were sold shutter-mounted; today the tendancy for closeup lenses in shutter is to sell "macro" lenses instead. Andy may or may not find the lack of a shutter convenient. It is an inexpensive way to try out closeup photography. Whether a reversed enlarging lens is a good choice depends on what Andy means by "closeup photography". If he means subjects of the size of a 4x5 negative or larger, i.e., reproduction ratios of 1:few, a 50 mm reversed enlarging lens will not cover 4x5. If he wants to do true macro photography with images larger than lifesize (reproduction ratios few:1), than reversed enlarging lenses will work well. For example, taking a photo of a 24x36 mm or smaller object to 4x5 film with a reversed enlarging lens is just like making a 4x5 print from a 35 mm film with the lens in normal orientation on the enlarger. Enlarging lenses are not symmetrical and one side, the side that normally faces the print, should face the larger of the subject or the image.</p>

 

<p>Some previous threads on closeup lenses: <i>Very macro LF photography</i> at <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003848">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003848</a>,

<i>Macro lens designs</i> at <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004MKM">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004MKM</a>,

and <i>Macro lens needed for 1:6 film to subject size?</i> at <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005NOI">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005NOI</a>.</p>

[scott_walton2]

In a pinch a 90mm works great if you can get in close enough without

blocking the light source. In the studio, a softbox and a studio stand works

very good.

[dave_s]

A reversed 50mm enlarging lens will work only at magnifications of about 4:1 or greater. This kind of magnification is a pain, and usually not worth it in LF, but you may have your reasons.

 

For natural objects, I find the most useful closeup range is maybe 1:2 to 1:5. Your mileage, as they say, may vary. In this range, a 135, 150, or 180mm enlarging lens should work like a bomb. Of course, you wouldn't want to reverse it-- it's right in the range where it's maximally corrected. If you shoot 4 x 5, you probably already have one of these.

 

Macro is a race between depth of field and diffraction, and depth of field is a big problem as image magnification increases. When you're getting near the optical limits, you're generally better off with smaller film and a shorter lens. Some small three-dimensional objects simply can't be photographed adequately at high magnifications.

[dan_fromm2]

Um, about reversing enlarging lenses.

 

I take the point that they're optimized for small behind, big in front. So when used above 1:1, with small in front, big behind, they should do better reversed. But and however I have a wonder-working 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar that is spectacular from 1:8 to 4:1 mounted normally, i.e., front of lens towards the subject. I know this isn't consistent with theory, but the lens appears to be more-or-less symmetrical so perhaps its more-or-less symmetry helps it beat the odds. Recently tried a 2"/4 Enlarging Pro Raptar mounted normally, it isn't very good above 1:1 and gets worse as magnfication goes up. Sigh.

 

Now, my 55/2.8 AIS MicroNikkor is anything but symmetrical. Reversed it is the best 50 mm +/- lens I've tried for working above 1:1. Using it mounted normally much above 1:1 is a waste of film.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan