Best 4x5 lens for product/still life/macro photography?

[Dillon505]

I’m building up my arsenal of 4x5 lenses at the moment and would like to start shooting some table top set ups, still life’s. I want the option to get in really close and would preferably like to have a 1:1 ratio at times. Can yall recommend a focal length that will suit this work flow? I’m looking into 210mm by Schneider or Rodenstock, wondering if I should get something longer? Also, I’ve seen macro lenses and wondering if it’s necessary or if I can just use standard lenses? Thanks!

 

[xkaes]

You're about to get a million recommendations for specific lenses -- but not from me.

You can use regular lenses for close-up and macro work -- just add more bellows extension. But those lenses are not designed for close-up and macro work. Lenses designed for close-up and macro work will give you better results -- and you asked for "Best 4x5 lens".

You need to figure out what magnifications you will be working at, and look at the specs for lenses designed for that range of magnifications.

Here's a place to start:

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

 

[DREW WILEY]

The best choice from Schneider would be a G Claron, which included a 210/9 in that series, then jumps to 240mm, or 150 the other direction. A comparable Fuji product would be their A series of "Super Plasmats", which skips from 180mm to 250mm. The Fuji ones tend to be more expensive. All these particular lenses are superbly corrected all the way from near-macro to infinity. Rodenstock has their Apo Ronar series, of different design - smaller image circle; but that wouldn't be a problem at 1:1 scale.

Do you have enough bellows extension capacity for 1:1 with a 210? My personal recommendation would be a Fuji 180/9 A-series lens; they come in a size 0 Copal shutter, so are wonderfully portable too.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I’m building up my arsenal of 4x5 lenses at the moment and would like to start shooting some table top set ups, still life’s. I want the option to get in really close and would preferably like to have a 1:1 ratio at times. Can yall recommend a focal length that will suit this work flow? I’m looking into 210mm by Schneider or Rodenstock, wondering if I should get something longer? Also, I’ve seen macro lenses and wondering if it’s necessary or if I can just use standard lenses? Thanks!

I use my Nikon 210mm for this, and it works just fine as long as I watch the bellows exposure compensation.

 

[Dillon505]

Thank you everyone for the responses! I guess I should be more specific and include the camera I'm using... Its a Linhof Master Technika 2000. The bellows extension is said to extend to 360mm but I'd rather play it safe at 300mm as I dont want to buy other lens boards etc...

I wanted to buy a 210mm for portraiture and figured it would also be a good still life/macro lens (this is a conclusion I've based off of full frame and medium format equivalents).

I guess my new question would be, what is a good focal length to shoot macro on a Linhof Master Technika?

My current lenses are a Rodenstock 150mm f/5.6 Sironar - n (silver band) and a Schneider super angulon 90mm f/5.6

 

[MattKing]

When you ask which lens might be "best" for those purposes, it is important to think about how you intend to use it.
Is it important to you that the lens exhibit excellent flat field performance? Not surprisingly, that is particularly important for photographing subjects that are flat.
What sort of magnifications are you thinking of? If they are high magnifications - e.g. greater than life size in particular - are you looking to use a lens only for this special purpose, or is it your hope that you will be able to use the lens for more general usage? Lenses that perform well at high magnifications are often mediocre with distant subjects.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Easiest way to get close with good image quality is to put an enlarging lens in a shutter. Schneider Componons, the older chrome variants, can screw right into the appropriate Copal shutter. I know my 100mm Componon-S goes right into one as well.

You need a shorter lens for macro work. Your bellows won’t be long enough for 1:1 with a 210. I’d probably use a 100mm for 1:1. Keep in mind the farther your lens gets from the film the bigger your image circle gets as well.

Hope that helps.

 

[blee1996]

I will probably start with the 150mm and see how it goes. I myself have been using 150mm for near macro photography of larger tablet top still life, such as flowers, vases, cameras, etc.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

The best choice from Schneider would be a G Claron, which included a 210/9 in that series, then jumps to 240mm, or 150 the other direction. A comparable Fuji product would be their A series of "Super Plasmats", which skips from 180mm to 250mm. The Fuji ones tend to be more expensive. All these particular lenses are superbly corrected all the way from near-macro to infinity. Rodenstock has their Apo Ronar series, of different design - smaller image circle; but that wouldn't be a problem at 1:1 scale.

Do you have enough bellows extension capacity for 1:1 with a 210? My personal recommendation would be a Fuji 180/9 A-series lens; they come in a size 0 Copal shutter, so are wonderfully portable too.

I do agree with the G-Claron, being of apochromatic flat field design these are small in size but great in performing!

Just the max aperture of F1:9 is a bit darkish...

 

[koraks]

I’m looking into 210mm by Schneider or Rodenstock, wondering if I should get something longer?

Shorter, more like. See the response by @Patrick Robert James above.
Especially on higher magnifications, shorter lenses tend to be more convenient.

I will probably start with the 150mm and see how it goes.

Sounds good for the kind of subject matter you mentioned.
For smaller items, you could even go down to 105mm or 90mm. It won't look quite as 'wide angle' as you may imagine it does once you get close to your subject.

 

[dpurdy]

I worked for lots of years in a commercial studio as a commercial table top photographer. My go to lens from the beginning was a Nikkor 210 f5.6. It would do most everything I needed. I had to get a new 4x5 camera though because I needed more bellows for closer focus stuff. Some photographer's standard lens was a 180. That felt too short to me. A 210 will compress the perspective a little and that is helpful. I have an f9 210 Gold Dot Dagor that might be sharper than the Nikkor though I doubt it. f9 is just too dark to view.

 

[DREW WILEY]

F/9 is plenty bright, especially in a studio when you can control the lighting. It's just a matter of having a properly ground glass in place (I don't use any kind of fresnel or screen brightener). And with just one infrequent exception, all the lenses I have used for the last several decades are f/9 or even smaller max aperture. With longer than "normal" focal lengths, there are not the same illuminance falloff issue as with wide-angle lenses.

Most of my lenses serve double-duty, for both 4X5 and 8X10 formats, or the other direction, for 6x7 roll film backs too. So the angle of view changes with the specific format. And the image circle becomes bigger at longer bellows extensions related to close-up work.

I've even used the Fuji A 180/9 to photograph the entrances to lava caves and manmade tunnels. It's easy. Just bring along a little laser pointer and aim it at your critical focus points, as you set up your camera movements and focus.

Dagors don't seem to be as good in tangential performance (strong tilts or swings) as plasmats, nor ideal for close-up work.

But for many people, general purpose f/5.6 plasmats will do just fine for close-up work, depending on just how critical your reproduction needs are, and if you really are approaching 1:1 macro or not. Test with what you already have before purchasing a specialty lens.

 

[xkaes]

With a lot of bellows extension, you lose a lot of light -- regardless of the lens. If you discover that short focal length lenses -- which don't need much extension -- are your friend for close-up work, you'll discover that f2.0 to f4.0 lenses are common. That really helps in any situation.

 

[DREW WILEY]

f 2 and f4 lenses are NOT common in any kind of large format work. The sheer weight alone would be prohibitive. Would you want one in your own backpack? Might as well go back to the days of having a real cast iron skillet in your pack, along with an axe, watermelon, and slab of bacon, plus canned food (I actually remember those days).

 

[xkaes]

When my Fujinon A 180mm f9 poops out at 1:1 (I only have 360mm of extension), I switch to my Minolta Auto Bellows Rokkor-X 100mm f4.0. No problem at all. It's smaller than the 180mm and 2 1/3 f-stops brighter!

 

[Chuck1]

f 2 and f4 lenses are NOT common in any kind of large format work. The sheer weight alone would be prohibitive. Would you want one in your own backpack? Might as well go back to the days of having a real cast iron skillet in your pack, along with an axe, watermelon, and slab of bacon, plus canned food (I actually remember those days).

Don't forget the beer

 

[DREW WILEY]

Xkaes, can you turn around and take a full 4x5 distant landscape with the same lens? I certainly paid my dues hauling too much gear up the ridges and crags, doing everything from a lichen closeup to the big grand views. Actually, I use 250/9 A a lot more than the 180 one, or else the 240 GC (which is now in rest home mode, though still fully usable). I normally have the Sinar equipped with 500 mm of rail, though I could easily add or subtract from that as needed. The bellows I take comfortably goes up to 28 inches.

One of these days I'd like to print an old 8x10 chrome of a ladybug swarm in the woods, which was taken at 1:1, but with a flatbed camera instead. I think I used a 250/6.7 Fuji W, which did a decent job. I'm just dreading buying another box of 8x10 Portra 160 for interneg use at today's prices.

Chuck - yeah, the beer. A backpacker's first mistake, especially if bottled. My hiking pal would bring the best - bottled Pliny. At high altitude it had a bit of a kick. People would stand in line for hours for the annual release of Pliny. Now they no longer sell it to the public, just to select pubs.

 

[koraks]

But can you turn around and take a full 4x5 distant landscape with the same lens?

some table top set ups, still life’s

Sounds like OP can decide to pack a heavier lens if he goes out, and experiment with whatever he can get his hands on in and around the house.

I think @xkaes' suggestion is an interesting one and it can work. Even more so, the more limited coverage of smaller-format lenses can be exploited artistically if that's your taste. One of the nice things about LF is that there's a decent degree of flexibility on both ends of the bellows. An LF camera is basically an invitation to experimentation.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Monorails in particular are almost like portable optical tables. You can component configure them all kinds of ways. The best tele photographer I ever knew took a huge 8X10 Toyo G and massive tripod, put a 360 Apo Nikkor process lens at one end, and a Nikon 35mm SLR body in the back, or sometimes a P67 body. Sinar once published a photo of a true micro (not macro) 8X10 setup with 14 feet of rail extension, involving multiple bellows sections and intermediate standards, with the rail clamps bolted to a long structural steel beam. What it was taking pictures of, I have no idea. They didn't say.

 

[xkaes]

I think @xkaes' suggestion is an interesting one and it can work. Even more so, the more limited coverage of smaller-format lenses can be exploited artistically if that's your taste.

You're leaving out the amazing growth of the image circle as you focus closer. The Fujinon A 180mm has a 250mm IC at infinity. At 1:1 it's gigantic. The same thing happens with shorter lenses that don't cover 4x5" at infinity. A 50mm macro lens designed for 35mm will cover 4x5" without much bellows extension at all -- and with great results.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You've still got a perspective distinction, along with depth of field connotations. And just how close do you want to be to the subject?
I have trouble even with a 50mm lens on an enlarger, due to insufficient intervening operation space. And I'm quite familiar with my Nikon 55/2.8 micro - great lens; but why do you think much longer macro lenses are getting more popular - it's not just that some of them serve in a tele role too, but due to more working distance in macro applications. My 85/1.4 tele is actually close-range corrected too, and easier to work with when it comes to close-ups. But even if I had it mounted on a Sinar board, it wouldn't be nearly as compact as either a GC or Fuji A lens of realistic focal length.

It all depends on the f-stop in use too, not just the bellows draw. Schneider lists the image circle for their 210 GC at f/22 1:1 as 520 mm. With the 150 GC it's 378 mm at 1:1. GC specs are actually conservative, being geared to graphics standards more stringent than general photography expectations. These lenses are designed for good tangential performance to accommodate tilts and swings, which 35mm lenses are not.

 

[xkaes]

The OP's bellows only goes to 360mm. That won't work for 1:1 with the stated 210mm lens. The only option is a shorter lens. My first step is to a 100mm Minolta bellows lens, which covers 4x5 at 1:1 -- and is designed for tilts and swings -- as is the Minolta Auto Bellows III.

 

[reddesert]

For tabletop photography, bellows extension really adds up quickly in larger formats due to the reproduction ratio. Suppose your subject matter is 8x10". On 35mm, this is a repro ratio of 1:8, and barely counts as macro. On 4x5, this is 1:2, and a 210mm lens requires 1.5x the focal length, 315mm of bellows.

On the positive side, nearly symmetrical lenses, like many large format lenses that are plasmat type designs (G-Claron, Symmar, etc, but not a Tessar), tend to behave well over a large range of reproduction ratios.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There's an important distinction to this. The original post mentioned tabletop product and still life shooting, which is almost never 1:1; nor does it typically need anywhere near as much bellows extension. It's just close-up photography in a relative sense. Now if one intends to specialize in photographing individual diamonds or insects, that is a different story.

 

[xkaes]

I want the option to get in really close and would preferably like to have a 1:1 ratio at times.

Sure, a normal 210mm can get to 1:1 with 16 inches of bellows and a film/photographer-to-subject distance of three feet (convenient???).

A shorter lens -- one actually designed for close-up work -- will not only get you within arm's reach of the subject, you'll end up with a brighter view on the ground glass (easier focusing) and better results.

Win-Win-WIn