100mm,150mm enlarging lens for macro

[Laci Toth]

Hi all,

I’m interested in using 100mm, 150mm enlarging lenses for macro work. What would be the outcome? Distance-wise, magnification-wise, dof, quality, distortion etc.
Is it worth it or should I use a shorter focal length? The reason why I’m asking is because the shorter ones have such a small dof.
I’ve seen Schneider Kreuznach Componon S 100 and 150mm and playing with the idea thpugh I might shouldn’t.
The setup is a Pentax Spotmatic on bellows.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Laci, it depends on the magnifications at which you want to work.

I've tried out 105/4.5 and 150/5.6 Comparons. These are basically Xenars tweaked for enlarging. I shoot 2x3 using lenses in shutter and these two are reasonable choices for that application. Both have cells that fit a #0 shutter. #0s are symmetrical, have the same threading front and rear so reversing a lens in a #0, necessary for working above 1:1, is a simple matter of swapping the cells front to rear. This isn't important in your application.

Anyway, I have better lenses for the range 1:6 to 6:1 but my Comparons are usable. If I didn't have better I'd use them.

I mention the Comparons because Schneider propaganda says that Comparons are better suited to relatively small enlargements (= relatively low magnifications when used as taking lenses) than are the equivalent Componons. They recommend Comparons for 2x - 6x enlargements (1:2 - 1:6 magnification) and Componons for 8x - 12x.

Your comment about short lenses giving smaller DoF is mistaken. DoF is determined by magnification and relative aperture. Do the derivation. Focal length falls out.

Its been a while since I shopped for any of these things. Comparons used to be very inexpensive, Componons less so.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Two sources that may be interesting to you are:

http://www.coinimaging.com/ - which tests several lenses, macro and enlarging, forward and reverse mounted, and posts nice resolution and sharpness figures for them

and


https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0064/index.htm -- A narrative about Nikon's 80mm enlarging lens, which in reading talks a lot about how enlarging lenses are designed and I found very interesting

 

[Laci Toth]

Laci, it depends on the magnifications at which you want to work.

I've tried out 105/4.5 and 150/5.6 Comparons. These are basically Xenars tweaked for enlarging. I shoot 2x3 using lenses in shutter and these two are reasonable choices for that application. Both have cells that fit a #0 shutter. #0s are symmetrical, have the same threading front and rear so reversing a lens in a #0, necessary for working above 1:1, is a simple matter of swapping the cells front to rear. This isn't important in your application.

Anyway, I have better lenses for the range 1:6 to 6:1 but my Comparons are usable. If I didn't have better I'd use them.

I mention the Comparons because Schneider propaganda says that Comparons are better suited to relatively small enlargements (= relatively low magnifications when used as taking lenses) than are the equivalent Componons. They recommend Comparons for 2x - 6x enlargements (1:2 - 1:6 magnification) and Componons for 8x - 12x.

Your comment about short lenses giving smaller DoF is mistaken. DoF is determined by magnification and relative aperture. Do the derivation. Focal length falls out.

Its been a while since I shopped for any of these things. Comparons used to be very inexpensive, Componons less so.

Thank you! I’ll do a bit more research and check on the Comparons as well.

 

[Laci Toth]

Two sources that may be interesting to you are:

http://www.coinimaging.com/ - which tests several lenses, macro and enlarging, forward and reverse mounted, and posts nice resolution and sharpness figures for them

and


https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0064/index.htm -- A narrative about Nikon's 80mm enlarging lens, which in reading talks a lot about how enlarging lenses are designed and I found very interesting

Thanks! Great! I check on them!

 

[Dan Fromm]

It is well known that Printing Nikkors are common and inexpensive. Not!

 

[AgX]

They recommend Comparons for 2x - 6x enlargements (1:2 - 1:6 magnification) and Componons for 8x - 12x.
.

This means that those lenses have their best resolution at these scales. But this does not necessarily mean that the more complex lens does not outperform the more simple lens at all scales.

 

[Dan Fromm]

This means that those lenses have their best resolution at these scales. But this does not necessarily mean that the more complex lens does not outperform the more simple lens at all scales.

Really?

Selbstverständlich können mit beiden Objektiv-Typen - besonders bei schwacher Abblendung — diese Maximalbereiche weitgehend überschritten werden. Man wird dabei kaum einen Unterschied feststellen, ob nun mit dem COMPONON 2- oder 6fach bzw. mit dem COMPARON 8- oder 12fach vergrößert wurde.

 

[AgX]

The statement by Schneider does not contradict what I said. As always in such cases side by side test will show if and when it makes sense to change lenses at various scales.

 

[AgX]

This statement by Schneider is not really clear
Moreover it says that these are maximum scales. Which again does not say that at lower scales the image quality would be significantly worse.

Best is to establish at own tests whether at different scales changing of lenses makes sense concerning image quality.

 

[ic-racer]

Depending on your subject matter, a 'macro' lens for your camera system can be easier to use. I have drawers full of enlarging lenses, but when I need to do close-up photography, I usually grab the macro lens for my camera system.

Having mentioned that, I do have a slide copying project coming up and I'll be using Dan's advice above for my lens selection for that critical 2D project.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Ic, my 35 mm system is Nikon. Two MicroNikkors, 55/3.5 AI and 55/2.8 AIS live in our house. Both are better at 1:1 than a Comparon. If you have either, or an AF 55 or 60, try it for "that critical 2D project."

If you have some other 35 mm system and a macro lens, try it before chasing a Comparon. As I said, there are better lenses.

 

[ic-racer]

Little off topic, but the issue is B&W printing some treasured 35mm transparencies by internegative. Choices are to "Print" them to 4x5 film with Componon-S using an enlarger vs 'photograph' them with the same enlarger converted to a copy stand using with macro lens and camera. Lens would be either Makro-Planar 60mm on 35mm or Planar-S with extension tube on 6x6 format.

 

[dynachrome]

Before I had macro lenses I used various short mount and enlarging lenses on manual bellows units. As I accumulated "purpose built" macro lenses with helicoids and auto diaphragms I also looked for bellows macro lenses. Some of these have auto diaphragms and some do not. For photographing small objects like coins or stamps, an auto diaphragm isn't essential. My most recent bellows macro lens is a 100/4 Super-Multi-Coated BELLOWS Takumar. I haven't used it yet. I have had good luck with bellows macro lenses and they can often be found at reasonable prices. When you are up to 150mm, you need a lot more extension so you re either shooting larger subjects or you need working distance. I wouldn't get too hung up on the exact optimum magnification range of each lens and I agree with Dan that using a macro lens is often easier and better than improvising.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Little off topic, but the issue is B&W printing some treasured 35mm transparencies by internegative. Choices are to "Print" them to 4x5 film with Componon-S using an enlarger vs 'photograph' them with the same enlarger converted to a copy stand using with macro lens and camera. Lens would be either Makro-Planar 60mm on 35mm or Planar-S with extension tube on 6x6 format.

Thanks for the reply. Given the relatively low magnification you need, you should consider making an interneg on 4x5 using the 60 Makro-Planar mounted normally (negative behind) instead of using a Componon-S. I'd try both lenses, use a grain focuser to see how well they project ...

 

[ic-racer]

Yes, a 4x5 internegative. I would like to save a little film and time by getting a baseboard exposure estimate with my Horseman film-plane exposure meter for which I have just sourced some batteries. The shutter on my enlarger goes down to 1/10 of a second. The Durst also has an adjustable aperture between the lamp and the mixing box, so I should be able to print at an optimum lens aperture with a manageable exposure time.

 

[Ian Grant]

Back to the OP's questions schneider sold Comonon-S (and non S) as Macro lenses mounted in shutters. The 100mm f5.6 Componon-S is designed for 1:20 to 1:1 according to a schneider datasheet from 20/11/2012.

Ian

 

[runswithsizzers]

I use a 100mm Schneider-Kreuznach Componon-S 5.6 enlarger lens on a Pentax bellows for copying 135 and 120 negatives and it works well for that purpose.

As for your questions about "quality" and "distortion" I don't think you will have any issues with the Schneider enlarging lenses. To see an example from my 100mm Schneider-Kreuznach Componon-S you can <click here>

"Distance-wise" at any given magnification, the 100mm and 150mm lenses will give you greater working distances than a 50mm macro lens - which is both good and bad. Good, because a longer working distance makes it easier to avoid working in your own shadow, And also, you are less likely to spook living subjects like insects. Bad, because camera movement is magnified. But if using a bellows, I assume you will also be using a tripod, so camera movement should be under control. If you want to hand-hold, I suggest sticking to a conventional macro lens.

What "magnification" you get depends on a combination of focal length and extension. With the same extension, longer focal lengths will give less magnification. Or, at the same magnification, longer focal length lenses will require more extension. This may be beneficial, or not. For photographing 120 film negatives with an APS-C camera, I calculated the total thickness of my bellows (at minimum) plus my adaptors, if used with a 50mm enlarging lens, might result in too much "magnification". That is, I might not be able to fit the entire image of the negative on my APS-C sensor. Using a 100mm lens requires more extension to get my desired magification, and so avoided that problem.

As others have mentioned, "dof" is a function of magnification - at any given combination of magnification and aperture, dof will be the same, regardless of focal length.

When researching my project, I discovered many of the online dof calculators are based on assumptions that make them unreliable for macro work. Here is a link to a <macro dof calculator>

Here is another macro tutorial you may find helpful: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm

 

[Laci Toth]

I use a 100mm Schneider-Kreuznach Componon-S 5.6 enlarger lens on a Pentax bellows for copying 135 and 120 negatives and it works well for that purpose.

As for your questions about "quality" and "distortion" I don't think you will have any issues with the Schneider enlarging lenses. To see an example from my 100mm Schneider-Kreuznach Componon-S you can <click here>

"Distance-wise" at any given magnification, the 100mm and 150mm lenses will give you greater working distances than a 50mm macro lens - which is both good and bad. Good, because a longer working distance makes it easier to avoid working in your own shadow, And also, you are less likely to spook living subjects like insects. Bad, because camera movement is magnified. But if using a bellows, I assume you will also be using a tripod, so camera movement should be under control. If you want to hand-hold, I suggest sticking to a conventional macro lens.

What "magnification" you get depends on a combination of focal length and extension. With the same extension, longer focal lengths will give less magnification. Or, at the same magnification, longer focal length lenses will require more extension. This may be beneficial, or not. For photographing 120 film negatives with an APS-C camera, I calculated the total thickness of my bellows (at minimum) plus my adaptors, if used with a 50mm enlarging lens, might result in too much "magnification". That is, I might not be able to fit the entire image of the negative on my APS-C sensor. Using a 100mm lens requires more extension to get my desired magification, and so avoided that problem.

As others have mentioned, "dof" is a function of magnification - at any given combination of magnification and aperture, dof will be the same, regardless of focal length.

When researching my project, I discovered many of the online dof calculators are based on assumptions that make them unreliable for macro work. Here is a link to a <macro dof calculator>

Here is another macro tutorial you may find helpful: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm

Thanks for your response!
Next week I’ll get the camera and have the possibility to try it with a Nikon 55mm f3.5. Probably for 135 it won’t be good but I’ll see for 6x7.
It’s great that you use the same setup I’m tending to use. I’ll check on the 100mm lenses as well.