ETRS Macro lenses

[Archimedes the Dog]

I am looking for macro and other images taken with the 100mm 1:4 and 105mm 1:1 macro lenses for the ETRS. Can anyone direct me to examples? I do a lot of flower/plant photography with my other cameras, I'd like to do some with the ETRS, and I also like the DOF of Macro lenses for portraits. The 105mm is rare and I may not need it if the 100mm works for my purposes. I am aware that the 105 takes a different size filter ring, I can cope with that, I am just concerned about how the lenses shoot. It's difficult finding good examples.

 

[lxdude]

I have no images digitized, so I can't show you examples. But, I can tell you a little bit. I have the 105/4.5 PE Macro. It focuses directly to 1:1. It takes a different filter size than almost all other ETR series lenses- 67mm vs. 62mm. It gives wonderful results-great color, great bokeh, and very sharp. It is a floating element design, and I would expect (but I do not know), that it would be better than the others at 1:1. It is large and heavy compared to the other macros due to its 1:1 capability. And it's slightly (1/3 stop) slower. They came new with a special bayonet hood included, but mine does not have it, and I hear that they make hen's teeth seem commonplace. However, the front element is well recessed. I have used an aftermarket screw-in hood with it, but can't say it's made any difference.

The other macros, the 100/4 E and 100/4 PE, focus to 1:4, so they need further extension to reach 1:1. The PE is later, so it might be a little better optically, and will have newer lens coatings. If I were going to use a macro lens for a walking-around lens or for a lot of non-macro stuff, I would be inclined to prefer one of these. A 100 plus an extension tube to get to 1:1 magnification won't really be any bulkier or heavier than the 105 by itself, and when the tube is not used, the 100 on camera is easier to carry than the big 105. I've thought about getting one just for that reason, and using the 105 mainly when doing more formal tripod mounted macro.

I have not owned either 100, but I have heard only good about them, optically and mechanically. A 100 and tube together are probably less expensive than the 105, though either option is very good as to cost. I have seen 105's for around $200 US, which is amazing to me. Mine was part of a package, so I can't state specifically what it cost me. 105's are not real common, but are not really hard to find, either. A little patience and they turn up.

I've never seen or heard of an optically bad macro lens, as they all are designed for high resolution, field flatness, and high correction. So while I can state without reservation that the 105 gives excellent results, I am sure that either 100 will give you very high optical quality.

 

[lxdude]

As to price and availability:

Right now, today, KEH has these:

100/4 Macro E, with caps. EX condition---- $119
100/4 Macro PE, with caps. EX condition--- $149
105/4.5 Macro PE. EX condition------------ $172

No extension tubes right now, but they often have them. They run something like $50 to 90 each, if I recall correctly, depending on size and condition.

 

[Archimedes the Dog]

Thank you so much, at those prices it's a bit of a wash. The 100 may thus end up more flexible overall, but how much speed is lost with a tube?

I carry a whole rig with a number of lenses and two cameras in a big backpack and rarely if ever use the ETRS as a walkaround camera, though you are right that it is likely better to use the 100 for that. I rarely go to 1:1 macro with my 35mm, but when i do, it's nice to have. It would be so nice to be able to go to a shop and compar ethem, but not really an option.

Anyone else have some example photos?

 

[hsandler]

I don't have either lens, but I do have the 42 mm extension tube and have used it with the 75mm and 150 mm lenses. I have some low res versions of flower macros in my photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hsandler/11901218883/

 

[wiltw]

Thank you so much, at those prices it's a bit of a wash. The 100 may thus end up more flexible overall, but how much speed is lost with a tube?

One needs to understand that the 'light loss' of a 1:1 macro lens is NO DIFFERENT than a non-macro lens used in combination with extension tubes to achieve 1:1
It is the magnification (reproduction ratio) which accounts for increase of exposure, NOT the manner in which it is accomplished.

 

[lxdude]

One thing to keep in mind is that 1:1 in medium format will not seem as close as with 135 format. As 1:1 means that the image of an object is the same size as the object itself, it will seem like magnification is lower in comparison. That is, an object which is 24X36mm, which would take up the entire 135 format image area at 1:1, will take up much less total image area in 645 format at 1:1. So you might find yourself going to 1:1 more often in 645.

 

[Archimedes the Dog]

K, I think I'll go for the 105 after all (after having originally talked myself into the 100), thanks.

 

[Archimedes the Dog]

Actually, what would other people do? Would you buy the 1:4 and a tube or the 1:1?

 

[alienmeatsack]

What about stacking some diopters of assorted strengths on one of your existing lenses as a cheap alternative? Is the DOF of those not wide enough for your needs?

 

[Archimedes the Dog]

I have never loved Diopters as a solution (I just prefer the look of a good macro) and I have the budget for the lens. I do a lot of flower photography in particular.

 

[MattKing]

My most recent medium format lens purchase was a macro lens (the 80mm f/4 for my Mamiya 645).

I do wonder though whether one is getting into the realm of diminishing returns when you consider medium format for macro.

The interplay of depth of field and diffraction limits tends to argue for smaller rather than larger formats.

Although a medium format back on a view camera is attractive, due to the availability of movements.

I think the strength of the medium format macro lenses actually lies in the near macro distances - the seamless transition between normal working distances (~8 x focal length and longer) through the closer but not life-size distances.

 

[lxdude]

Actually, what would other people do? Would you buy the 1:4 and a tube or the 1:1?

If you think you are going to be going closer than 1:4 regularly, while still using it at regular distances, then the 105 will be more convenient. Not having to hassle with a tube while doing both macro and non-macro work is very nice. It is a floating element design so I expect that it is optically superior at 1:1, though I don't know that, and I don't know if any superiority would show up in actual pictures.

I was astonished that the 105/4.5 was only $172 in EX condition at KEH. I had not seen one below $200 before this. They just don't sell for much, and it appears their prices have dropped more in the last year or two, though I doubt they will get any cheaper than they are now. By the time you buy the tube with the 100/4 E Macro, you've laid out about the same amount.

I think you should get the 105/4.5. If you don't like it, you can always sell it and get a 100/4. While it is larger and heavier than a 100/4 without a tube, they're going to be pretty close with the tube on the 100. It's just that without the tube, the 100 makes a lighter, somewhat less bulky camera/lens combo.

 

[ambaker]

On the flip side, with the 105 the 1:1 capability is always with you. Also, you don't have to undo anything to go back to more "normal" photography.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[lxdude]

Here are some specs from the very comprehensive ETR series lens database on BUG (Bronica Users Group), compiled by the estimable Jonathan Taylor, who is also a BUG honcho.

The specs for the 100 E and the 100 PE are identical.

----------Focal length equiv.-----Min. focus dist.--------Length (at inf.)-----------Diameter------------Weight
100mm------62mm--------------.61m---2.0 ft.--------86.7mm---3.41 in.------82mm---3.23 in.-----650g---1.43 lb.
105mm------65mm--------------.35m---1.1 ft.--------104mm----4.09 in.------86mm---3.39 in.-----920g---2.03 lb.

What I get converting Jonathan's U.S. measurement decimals is that the 105 is just about 11/16" longer, 5/32" bigger diameter, 9.6 ounces heavier.

 

[moto-uno]

Hopefully this comes through and gives a rough idea of the 105 macros' capability.
Peter

 

[Archimedes the Dog]

View attachment 81487

Hopefully this comes through and gives a rough idea of the 105 macros' capability.
Peter

very nice! I got my 105 last week, gonna try it soon!