Macro lenses

TareqPhoto · Jan 26, 2017

Hi all,

I am planning to get macro lenses for my film gear, but i am not sure which are good lenses to go with, i think in medium format they are known which ones, but not sure in LF

So, i am looking for macro lenses for following formats or cameras:

- Mamiya RZ67 ProII
- Mamiya RB67 ProSD, i prefer to go with this more because it is mechanic camera, no hassle with batteries
- Hasselblad 501CM, don't like this camera much, but it is lightweight more than above 2 cameras and the square format is interesting sometimes and i can think more creative for macro photography
- Large Format 4x5, whatever camera i use

So what is your recommendations?

Dan Fromm · Jan 26, 2017

For MF SLRs, you're stuck with lenses the manufacturers offer. Go read their catalogs, then consult your banker.

For LF, the right lens depends on the range of magnifications you're going to shoot at. What do you plan to do? Just "macro" is the wrong answer.

MattKing · Jan 26, 2017

The 140mm macro lens for the RB67 is quite good, available used at reasonable cost, and usable on the RZ67 as well.
My "small" RB kit includes two lenses: a 65mm and the 140mm macro lens.

etn · Jan 26, 2017

I find the Hasselblad quite good for macro, but if you don't like it, you shall prefer something which is more fun to you.
I don't know the price of Mamiya macro lenses, but if you already own a Hassy and want to use it, here are your options:
- use Proxar lenses with your existing lenses. Pros: no light loss, Cons: might not give an image as good and distorsion-free as other options. Price: around $100 a set
- use extension rings. You can do this with virtually any lens. They will set you back a few dozen $. You will need those in any case for doing macro.
- 120mm macro-planar lens. Really good and versatile. They can be found for around $600-700 used (CF version). Note that the lens has a limited reproduction ratio by itself, you will need extension rings.
- 135mm bellows. This one is as specialized as it is fantastic. It is mounted on bellows so you do not need extensions, nor can you use any. Big, clunky, ... I don't use mine much but I love it every time I do. It goes down to 1:1. Price: maybe $700-900.

Hope this helps.

Leigh B · Jan 26, 2017

There are two unrelated issues here:
1 - Ability to focus at the distance required for the desired magnification.

For 1:1 ratio, the lens must move forward from its infinity focus by a distance equal to its focal length.
Some macro lenses for smaller formats have enough range in the focusing helix to achieve a 1:2 ratio.
Short FL lenses may have enough helix for 1:1. Any lens can do that using a bellows or extension tubes.

2 - The amount of distortion present in the image at that distance.

Regular lenses are optimized for magnification ratios of 1:10 or 1:20, appropriate for general photography.
Outside of this distance, distortions increase. When used with a bellows or extension rings, quality suffers.

Macro lenses are optimized for much shorter working distances, appropriate for 1:2 or even 1:1 ratios.
If used for general photography (longer distances), distortions will increase.

- Leigh

TareqPhoto · Jan 26, 2017

Leigh B said:
There are two unrelated issues here:
1 - Ability to focus at the distance required for the desired magnification.

For 1:1 ratio, the lens must move forward from its infinity focus by a distance equal to its focal length.
Some macro lenses for smaller formats have enough range in the focusing helix to achieve a 1:2 ratio.
Short FL lenses may have enough helix for 1:1. Any lens can do that using a bellows or extension tubes.

2 - The amount of distortion present in the image at that distance.

Regular lenses are optimized for magnification ratios of 1:10 or 1:20, appropriate for general photography.
Outside of this distance, distortions increase. When used with a bellows or extension rings, quality suffers.

Macro lenses are optimized for much shorter working distances, with 1:2 or even 1:1 ratios.
If used for general photography (longer distances), distortions will increase.

- Leigh

So what is the recommendation?

Leigh B · Jan 26, 2017

TareqPhoto said:
So what is the recommendation?

That's for you to decide.

It depends entirely on what you want to accomplish, and with what existing equipment.

It's just like the basic choice of a format, and then of a camera for that format.
There is no single "best" choice. Each option has advantages and disadvantages.

- Leigh

TareqPhoto · Jan 26, 2017

Leigh B said:
That's for you to decide.

It depends entirely on what you want to accomplish, and with what existing equipment.

It's just like the basic choice of a format, and then of a camera for that format.
There is no single "best" choice. Each option has advantages and disadvantages.

- Leigh

I asked about recommendations and not about the best of.

Also, i mentioned above what i was looking for, but is finding a macro lens for medium format and large format that difficult? so good i asked because i didn't get any answer anyway, only talks about what is my approach or what i am looking for then the lens will come out.

Well, for Hasselblad i already know the macro lens for it, for RZ not sure but i think it is the same lens for RB, so i need to read more if there is only one lens or there is another one more, but for LF i feel i couldn't get the right answer, is it about magnification or is it about working distance or what exactly? also why they called it a macro lens if it is not designed for macro things, what will be different with those lenses over other standard lenses or non macro.

Thanks!

MattKing · Jan 26, 2017

The questions asked of you were asked because there are a whole bunch of ways to make use of macro capabilities - in fact there are a number of opinions about what the label macro should actually apply to.
As an example, are you interested in a general purpose lens that in appropriate circumstances can be used for moderately close focus use?
Is flat field performance at close distances/moderately large magnifications critical, or are most of your subjects not flat anyways?
By macro do you mean moderately large magnification - say up to about 1/3 life size on a 6x7 negative - or are you in need of much higher magnifications like life-size, 2 x life size, 4 x life-size or even more, up to the range of photo-micrography (photography of microscopic objects)?
"Macro" photography is highly demanding, and very diverse. The different types of macro photography tend to work best if you use a lens designed specifically for each type.
The RB lens I mentioned above is a good compromise, because it has a manually adjustable floating element that adjusts for flat field performance for everything between infinity and about 1/3 life size. With one or more extension tubes, you can get it to about 1.23 x life size.

alanrockwood · Jan 27, 2017

A comment about 1:1 ratios, 1:2 ratios, and such: what is often ignored in such discussions is that implications of the magnification ratio vary with the format you are shooting. Here's what I mean. at a 1:1 magnification ratio the head of a grasshopper would come rather close to filling the frame of a 16mm format. However, if shooting an 8"x10" format the grasshopper head would only cover a relatively small region of the film area, which pretty much negates the motivation for using a large format.

Therefore, don't forget about the film format you are dealing with when using terms such as 1:1 magnification, and especially remember that as a practical matter a 1:1 magnification is not much of a close up shot on large format film.

Leigh B · Jan 27, 2017

alanrockwood said:
Therefore, don't forget about the film format you are dealing with when using terms such as 1:1 magnification, and especially remember that as a practical matter a 1:1 magnification is not much of a close up shot on large format film.

I choose the format, 35mm to 8x10, based on how large I want the image to be.
That determines the reproduction ratio.

That obviously is based on the size of the subject and what I want to do with the image.

- Leigh

etn · Jan 27, 2017

Tareq,
to give you a recommendation: what do you aleeady own and how much do you want to spend on top of it?
You can also pm me if you prefer.
Thanks
etn

TareqPhoto · Jan 27, 2017

Well, i mentioned above which camera bodies i will use, 2 Mamiyas and 1 Hasselblad and a large format 4x5, i was clear about which format i will use.
Also, i wanted to shoot only close ups detailed items or subjects, not a general purpose lens that i can use sometimes for close ups, so i mean a dedicated macro lens, filling the frame or almost filling, but if in film format there isn't such a thing then in this case i don't know which lens to get.

I mentioned the bodies above which means only MF [6x6/6x7 and maybe 6x4.5 with different film back] and LF [4x5].

EdSawyer · Jan 27, 2017

Go for the later version of the RZ67 140mm M/L-A lens. It has the floating-element ring near the front of the lens (vs. the older one which had the ring near the back of the lens.) Fantastic choice for regular non-macro stuff too.

for 4x5, I consider the Nikkor AM-ED 120mm and 210mm lenses the best 4x5 macro lenses. They have a lot of DNA from the Apo El Nikkors, which are legendary in their own right.

-Ed

Trail Images · Jan 27, 2017

MattKing said:
The 140mm macro lens for the RB67 is quite good, available used at reasonable cost, and usable on the RZ67 as well.
My "small" RB kit includes two lenses: a 65mm and the 140mm macro lens.

+1.......I also have the two extension tubes but rarely use those. The 140mm is an amazing lens for macro or closeup work. And, it works great as a slightly longer then standard focal length lens too.

etn · Jan 27, 2017

TareqPhoto said:
Well, i mentioned above which camera bodies i will use, 2 Mamiyas and 1 Hasselblad and a large format 4x5, i was clear about which format i will use.
Also, i wanted to shoot only close ups detailed items or subjects, not a general purpose lens that i can use sometimes for close ups, so i mean a dedicated macro lens, filling the frame or almost filling, but if in film format there isn't such a thing then in this case i don't know which lens to get.

I mentioned the bodies above which means only MF [6x6/6x7 and maybe 6x4.5 with different film back] and LF [4x5].

Yes, my question was more related to the lenses you already own. Some Hasselblad lenses, although not specifically designed for macro (as the 120 and 135 were), are actually quite usable. If you want a dedicated macro lens, the Hassy 135 on bellows is a terrific performer and the bellows make it easy to adjust to the reproduction ratio you need, removing the hassle of fiddling with extension rings. A similar lens surely exists for the Mamiya if you prefer that system.

I hope all answers together could help you make a choice!

TareqPhoto · Jan 27, 2017

Thank you very much!

Not sure if i should start with MF lens or 4x5 lens, but as long i am not started with 4x5 much yet and didn't sell current for another model so i will start with MF then.

MattKing · Jan 27, 2017

One warning: Depth of field can be a real challenge with larger formats and closer focussing!

TareqPhoto · Jan 27, 2017

MattKing said:
One warning: Depth of field can be a real challenge with larger formats and closer focussing!

And this is a real fun or or as you called it "A challenge", so it will force me to shoot more to understand it or get it right.

Dan Fromm · Jan 27, 2017

TareqPhoto said:
And this is a real fun or or as you called it "A challenge", so it will force me to shoot more to understand it or get it right.

Read about it first. Buy a copy of Lester Lefkowitz' book The Manual of Closeup Photography, available used at reasonable prices from vendors on abebooks.com, alibris.com, amazon.com, ... And study it. The ideas in it will help you understand how to do things and how to analyze failed shots.

TareqPhoto · Jan 27, 2017

Dan Fromm said:
Read about it first. Buy a copy of Lester Lefkowitz' book The Manual of Closeup Photography, available used at reasonable prices from vendors on abebooks.com, alibris.com, amazon.com, ... And study it. The ideas in it will help you understand how to do things and how to analyze failed shots.

I will try to practice with 150mm first, i don't think my Ektar 127 or 135 are great for this, but 150mm is the only lens i have that can be closer to a macro lens for LF.

Old-N-Feeble · Jan 27, 2017

Regarding close-focus lenses for 4x5: I've been researching this for some time. I have no practical experience but when I have the funds I'm buying a 120mm Nikkor AM ED and 210mm AM ED. The G-Claron optics are nearly as good but I'm a spoiled brat so I want the best. Also, those focal lengths are the most practical for the close-up imagery I'm capable of doing these days.

TareqPhoto · Jan 27, 2017

So it is Nikkor 120mm then, i will look for it, thank you very much

Sirius Glass · Jan 27, 2017

The Hasselblad has fixed length extension tubes, a harder to find variable extension tube and bellows.

TareqPhoto · Jan 27, 2017

Sirius Glass said:
The Hasselblad has fixed length extension tubes, a harder to find variable extension tube and bellows.

I really wish to use Hasselblad more over other formats, but the more i use 6x7 up to 6x9 i hate using Hasselblad.
In addition, the focusing with Hasselblad is a headache for me, i must buy one of those 45 prism or viewfinder making it easier, the Hasselblad WLF isn't that great comparing to Mamiya 6x7 WLF.

Macro lenses

TareqPhoto

Dan Fromm

MattKing

Moderator

etn

Leigh B

TareqPhoto

Leigh B

TareqPhoto

MattKing

Moderator

alanrockwood

Leigh B

etn

TareqPhoto

EdSawyer

Trail Images

etn

TareqPhoto

MattKing

Moderator

TareqPhoto

Dan Fromm

TareqPhoto

Old-N-Feeble

TareqPhoto

Sirius Glass

TareqPhoto

Macro lenses

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency