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.

 

[blee1996]

My experience is similar to the consensus here: unless you need flat field performance at macro distance, any decent LF lens can be used successfully.

 

[xkaes]

Lenses are designed to have their optimal performance at certain magnifications. Last time I checked, it was still legal to use them outside of this range, but you'll be responsible for the results.

 

[benveniste]

Lenses are designed to have their optimal performance at certain magnifications. Last time I checked, it was still legal to use them outside of this range, but you'll be responsible for the results.

I'm always responsible for the results.

I bought the 120mm AM-Nikkor when B&H was offering them at fire sale prices. The challenge I find is trying to obtain sufficient depth of field on subjects such as large flowers.

 

[Don_ih]

The Tominon lenses for the Polaroid MP4 are suitable for macro.

 

[Dan Fromm]

To restate the obvious, OP, which lenses you should consider depends on the magnification you intend to shoot at.

The Tominon lenses for the Polaroid MP4 are suitable for macro.

That's what Polaroid claimed. When I was shopping for good macro lenses for use above 1:1 I tested a number of MP4 Tominons. All of the 135s were dogs. Every one. I never had a 105 so can't comment on it. All of the shorter ones are usable but far from the best at their focal lengths. Nevertheless, because they're usable and inexpensive they're good values and worth trying.

If you want good macro lenses, think Luminar, MacroNikkor, maybe Mikrotar, 100 NeuPolar, Photar. If you can live with small maximum aperture and don't need all the resolution that good macro lenses can give, think process lenses, e.g., Apo Artar, ReproClaron, dialyte type ApoNikkor, ApoRonar, Apo Saphir, ...

I don't think that the OP was clear about the subjects he/she/it plans to photograph at near distances.

There's a law of nature to the effect that at high magnifications there's never enough depth of field. This is why image stacking when shooting static subjects with a digital camera is invaluable.

The law above has a corollary that at high magnification stopping down reduces depth of field.

There's another law of nature to the effect that shooting moving subjects at near distances with anything but an SLR is very difficult, if possible at all.

I urge the OP to think hard about photographic goals before thinking about gear. 4x5 may will be the wrong choice given the OP's goals.

 

[_T_]

There’s a little bit of an issue with using large format lenses as macro lenses in that they usually have relatively slow maximum apertures, meaning that diffraction can degrade the image very quickly as magnification increases.

The effective aperture of a lens at magnifications greater than 1:1 is the f-number*(1+magnification)

And the formula for diffraction limited resolution is 0.61λ*NA

And numerical aperture is 1/(2*f-number)

And the nyquist sampling resolution is half the size of the image resolution limit.

So if you do the calculations for various magnifications you’ll see that shooting with the lens set to f/5.6 you end up using less than half of the available resolution of a typical sheet of 4x5 (per kodak data sheets) at around a magnification of 3:1 which is a subject size of about 40mm x 32mm

For objects smaller than this size it starts to become increasingly attractive to have all the benefits of a smaller sensor, as you’re not getting much of any benefit from having a larger sensor anymore.

That is of course unless you choose a lens that is designed for use on smaller sensors since they often have wider maximum apertures and thus smaller airy disks which can be magnified more before making the extra sensor area of 4x5 a detriment rather than an asset.

The only remaining issue then becomes whether or not you can tolerate the shallower depth of field that you will get with the larger sensor, since there’s no way to do focus stacking on 4x5. At these magnifications there’s almost no benefit to stopping down and doing so leads to serious degradation due to diffraction very quickly.