4x5 macro lens

[Photoemulator]

I was researching the different lenses that can be used for this format and I was looking for who had opinions. I could always post the wrong information and just wait for the pack to descend to correct me, but I don't like rage-baiting. I've read 180mm macro lenses and maybe some 210mm. What's your favorite? And does it have to be Macro designation? I know they are created for that feature, I just wonder if anyone's tested this out?

 

[thinkbrown]

My understanding has always been that almost any lens can be used for macro photography on 4x5 and that you flip the lens/swap the cells for greater than 1:1 magnification

 

[koraks]

A 'macro' lens is optimized for a short subject-to-lens distance. This is true for large format as well, although you don't very commonly see macro LF lenses for (I think) a couple of reasons:
1: The large image area size makes resolution requirements a little less stringent as you generally enlarge less.
2: As @thinkbrown says, any lens can be a macro lens as long as there's enough bellows draw.
3: For macro, magnification is key and starting with a very large film or sensor area is kind of antithetic. So for macro work, the question is whether an LF camera makes all that much sense to begin with.

Having said that, there certainly are lenses optimized for close-focus work for larger film/sensor areas.

And no, personally I don't use LF macro lenses. I don't do much macro anyway, and if I do, I start with the smallest sensor/film size possible because it makes everything so much easier (see point 3 above). I've done close-up work on 4x5 and also 8x10, but not very often true macro (1:1 reproduction) and virtually never beyond 1:1 magnification. For what I've done, regular LF lenses have always been perfectly adequate.

 

[grant.goodes]

I don't shoot LF, but I do have one of Nikon's LF macro lenses, the Nikkor 120/5.6 AM-ED. This lens will cover 4x5 at 1:1 magnification, but not at infinity. It is a fully symmetric design, so no need to reverse-mount for macro. It is a _wonderful_ lens, razor sharp, compact, and mechanically solid. I use it on my Nikon PB-4 bellows for 35mm, and wanted the larger coverage so I could make use of the PB-4's movements. I would point you to this brochure which describes Nikon's range of LF lenses, including the AM macro-series. The 120/5.6 is the shortest of the AM's, but as I said I like it for how compact it is (Copal #0 shutter). Any of the AM lenses would likely be an excellent choice for your purposes.

 

[xkaes]

koraks is correct -- what magnification you want is the important thing -- but you don't need to limit yourself to lenses designed for large format cameras. I only have ONE that is. The rest are designed for smaller formats -- because they cover 4x5" at higher magnifications.

Check out:

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/macrolenses.htm

 

[analogwisdom]

Mat Marrash has a good video about this topic if you're a YouTube kind of person:

 

[djdister]

Lens choice is certainly one issue, however having enough bellows extension on your 4x5 is a big one too. I wouldn't expect to be shooting macro on a Speed Graphic, for example. What 4x5 do you have?

 

[MattKing]

The most important characteristic of what makes a lens a macro lens is its flat field performance at close distances/high magnifications.
That includes corner to corner resolution, and lack of geometric distortion.
Such considerations are particularly important for certain subjects, like document copying, and somewhat less important for non-flat subjects like flowers.
This was taken with a 140mm macro lens for a Mamiya RB67, but given the non-flat nature of this subject, another non-macro variant may have behaved satisfactorily:

 

[Martin Frank]

4 yrs ago I made a series of 4x5 kallitypes of vintage sewing machines using an F3.7 105mm kodak ektar made I believe for the 6x9 format. The aperture made the image fairly bright on the ground glass and at ~1:1, the lens provided more than adequate coverege and sharpness for these contact printed-not enlarged negatives

 

[Alan Townsend]

I would suggest using a 4x5 enlarging lens that is optimized for 8x10 enlargements as a macro lens at around that magnification. Finding a shutter for that is another problem but you can always use a speed graphic or other camera with focal plane shutter. Otherwise use slow film and stop down enough that the lens hood can be used as a shutter. Packard or other similar shutters also possible.

 

[xkaes]

having enough bellows extension on your 4x5 is a big one too

Amount of bellows is no big deal. You just move to a shorter focal length lens. My TOKO 4x5 has 360mm of extension, so I can get to 1:1 with my Fujinon A 180. If I need higher magnification, I switch to a shorter lens.

 

[xkaes]

I would suggest using a 4x5 enlarging lens that is optimized for 8x10 enlargements

I've never heard of a 4x5 enlarging lens designed for 2X magnification.

 

[Donald Qualls]

4 yrs ago I made a series of 4x5 kallitypes of vintage sewing machines using an F3.7 105mm kodak ektar made I believe for the 6x9 format. The aperture made the image fairly bright on the ground glass and at ~1:1, the lens provided more than adequate coverege and sharpness for these contact printed-not enlarged negatives

I have an f/6.3 105 mm triplet (Agnar, IIRC) that does a fine job on 4x5 film if focused inside about 12 feet (which is hyperfocal at f/16 or smaller). I haven't tried macro with it, but it ought to work well, and even have room for some movements if required when focused inside three feet or so.