Macro lenses

[Sirius Glass]

I never use the WLF. The PME 45 degree finder is worth its weight in gold.

 

[TareqPhoto]

I never use the WLF. The PME 45 degree finder is worth its weight in gold.

Making me to think seriously about getting one, that WLF is really a pain in.... for me with Hasselblad, but i think if i get that PME then i will enjoy Hasselblad more and more.

 

[Leigh B]

There is also a 90 degree finder for the Hasselblad, which I have. I like it very much.

The waist-level works fine for fashion and advertising with the camera on a tripod.
Hand-held it's less than ideal IMO.

- Leigh

 

[TareqPhoto]

There is also a 90 degree finder for the Hasselblad, which I have. I like it very much.

The waist-level works fine for fashion and advertising with the camera on a tripod.
Hand-held it's less than ideal IMO.

- Leigh

Oh yes, i forgot about that 90 degree finder too, so now i don't know which one to get, the 45 or 90 degree finder?

Sounds with any it will work better for me, because i also like to han-held, but few times i do use the tripod but i don't shoot fashion or advertising, so WL is definitely not my choice.

 

[Dan Fromm]

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.

Tareq, stop thinking about equipment and buy the book. You need to learn about technique. The rules for shooting at distance that we know and love work poorly closeup.

There are several fairly recent macro lenses for 4x5 from familiar lens makers. 120/5.6 and 210/5.6 Nikkor-AM ED, 120/5.6 and 180/5.6 Apo-Macro Sironars (there's a third that I don't have documentation on), 120/5.6 and 180/5.6 Macro-Symmar. All good lenses, IMO functionally equivalent focal length for focal length.

There are also more specialized LF macro lenses from microscope manufacturers and microscope divisions lens makers. For example, Leitz Photars, Nikon Macro-Nikkors, Zeiss (Jena) Mikrotars and Zeiss (Oberkochen) Luminars. I have 25, 40 and 63 mm Luminars, have had a 100, have had a 90 Mikrotar, have a 100 Reichert NeuPolar. None of these is right for general closeup photography, although the 90 Mikrotar, 100 Luminar and 100 Neupolar come close. I sold the Luminar and Mikrotar, kept the Neupolar. That should tell you something.

Which of these is best for you depends on your budget and the range of magnifications at which you want to shoot. No one can recommend anything to you without knowing the range of magnifications at which you want to shoot.

 

[TareqPhoto]

Tareq, stop thinking about equipment and buy the book. You need to learn about technique. The rules for shooting at distance that we know and love work poorly closeup.

There are several fairly recent macro lenses for 4x5 from familiar lens makers. 120/5.6 and 210/5.6 Nikkor-AM ED, 120/5.6 and 180/5.6 Apo-Macro Sironars (there's a third that I don't have documentation on), 120/5.6 and 180/5.6 Macro-Symmar. All good lenses, IMO functionally equivalent focal length for focal length.

There are also more specialized LF macro lenses from microscope manufacturers and microscope divisions lens makers. For example, Leitz Photars, Nikon Macro-Nikkors, Zeiss (Jena) Mikrotars and Zeiss (Oberkochen) Luminars. I have 25, 40 and 63 mm Luminars, have had a 100, have had a 90 Mikrotar, have a 100 Reichert NeuPolar. None of these is right for general closeup photography, although the 90 Mikrotar, 100 Luminar and 100 Neupolar come close. I sold the Luminar and Mikrotar, kept the Neupolar. That should tell you something.

Which of these is best for you depends on your budget and the range of magnifications at which you want to shoot. No one can recommend anything to you without knowing the range of magnifications at which you want to shoot.

Let's start with the last lines, so what is the range of magnifications?

I am not in that part of world where buying books is easy task, it will take me long time to get books from somewhere, very east to get equipment but not books, and as i said, it will take time until that book or another getting to my country, and by then i may get busy with many things and even i may lost interest in LF due to waiting that damn book to read about techniques, i love to experiment and i really don't need to read many books about all photography rules and formats only to start shooting, i did that with digital but at some points i didn't wait books and just bought the equipment and started to shoot, but it sounds there is no straight forward question about LF macro thing, or even a macro in general in film, so that digital is very easy, and i do have a macro lenses for my digital formats and they both done the job and stopped me for looking for any another macro lenses in digital.

I think i will let this macro thing in film for future study either from books or whatever, i thought it will be just one answer or straight forward, but sounds it isn't, so i will get busy with something else then i will think again about macro topic in film especially with LF.

Thank you very much for pointing me to the book, will look for it and i just hope i can find it and be shipped to me as soon as possible.

 

[Jim Jones]

For 4x5 where great depth of field isn't important and you aren't approaching 1:1 magnification, some enlarging lenses perform well and can be inexpensive enough for experimenting.

 

[TareqPhoto]

For 4x5 where great depth of field isn't important and you aren't approaching 1:1 magnification, some enlarging lenses perform well and can be inexpensive enough for experimenting.

Ok, fair enough, maybe will try one of those, thank you!

 

[ruilourosa]

Makro Symmar Hm...

 

[etn]

Oh yes, i forgot about that 90 degree finder too, so now i don't know which one to get, the 45 or 90 degree finder?

Sounds with any it will work better for me, because i also like to han-held, but few times i do use the tripod but i don't shoot fashion or advertising, so WL is definitely not my choice.

I find the 45 easier to use both hand-held and on a tripod, the camera is in a "more natural" position. The 90 enables a higher point of view which can be important when shooting portraits. You might feel some sort of grip is necessary to hold the camera comfortably with the 90. For what you shoot I recommend the 45.

Prisms with integrated meters will help determining the exposure at higher magnifications more accurately. Not 100% mandatory, as it can easily be computed, but useful in the field. The PME45 and 90 are the best, featuring a global and a spot meter, but also the most expensive.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Thank you very much for pointing me to the book, will look for it and i just hope i can find it and be shipped to me as soon as possible.

Here: https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Se...p=SearchF-_-NullResults-_-Results&kn=close-up

43 copies.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

I'm interested in why you don't like the Hasselblad 501cm much the 501 c is my all-time favorite MF camera.what's not to like?

 

[TareqPhoto]

I find the 45 easier to use both hand-held and on a tripod, the camera is in a "more natural" position. The 90 enables a higher point of view which can be important when shooting portraits. You might feel some sort of grip is necessary to hold the camera comfortably with the 90. For what you shoot I recommend the 45.

Prisms with integrated meters will help determining the exposure at higher magnifications more accurately. Not 100% mandatory, as it can easily be computed, but useful in the field. The PME45 and 90 are the best, featuring a global and a spot meter, but also the most expensive.

Ok, then i will go with the 45 degree one then, thank you very much

 

[TareqPhoto]

Here: https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Se...p=SearchF-_-NullResults-_-Results&kn=close-up

43 copies.

Cool, thank you very much

 

[TareqPhoto]

I'm interested in why you don't like the Hasselblad 501cm much the 501 c is my all-time favorite MF camera.what's not to like?

I don't say i don't like Hasselblad 501CM as it is, but i said i hate focusing with Hasselblad 6x6 in general, focusing is a headache for me, even if i do focus spot on but it takes time for one shot to focus accurate as much as i can, so i feel i don't like to use Hasselblad.

Also, i was thinking to go with 500CM instead of 501CM, i like the chrome[or silver] color over the black, my 501CM body is black and the film holder is chrome one, so i feel it is like not matching but working, so i want to buy 500CM chrome body only and 45PME then i will use Hasselblad more, i am i very sensitive guy about details or colors or design in everything, and photography tools isn't any exception.

 

[benveniste]

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!

I use a Pentax 120mm Macro lens with my Pentax 645 system and it's an excellent lens. With any accessories, it allows focusing from infinity down to a 1x magnification. I've used it for projects such as creating 30" prints of a 27mm coin, which did require extension tubes to fill the frame.. While it performs well at all focus distances, it's considerably larger and heavier than, say, my 135mm lens for the same system and a lot of the focus throw is consumed in the close up range. That makes it more difficult to achieve precise focus at longer distances.

The only designated macro lens I know of for the RZ system is the 140mm f/4.5 and all I know about it are the specs. Unlike my Pentax, it requires extension tubes to reach life-sized (1x) magnification. But like the Pentax it uses a "floating element" arrangement to improve close-up performance.

There were a few large format lenses designed specifically for Macro. I own one of them, a Nikon Macro 120mm f/5.6 Nikkor-AM(ED) which I picked up for silly money when B&H was clearing them out. It differs from a conventional large format lens in a couple of different ways. Most obviously, it doesn't cover 4x5" at infinity. Instead, it's optimized for magnifications in the 0.5x to 2.5x range. Nikon claimed it is 100% free of distortion and lateral chromatic aberration at 1:1 magnification with a flat field of focus. Obviously, the more magnification you want, the more extension you need. Since my 4x5 camera is a Wista field camera, I'm limited to just over 1.5:1.

But since you haven't said what your intended subject matter is, I can't say which to try first. What I can say is that macrophotography is as much about depth-of-field, lighting, and eliminating dust and vibration as it is about optics. Make sure you work out your shooting setup before clicking the shutter -- especially with 4x5 minor mistakes become expensive in a hurry.

 

[etn]

I don't say i don't like Hasselblad 501CM as it is, but i said i hate focusing with Hasselblad 6x6 in general, focusing is a headache for me, even if i do focus spot on but it takes time for one shot to focus accurate as much as i can, so i feel i don't like to use Hasselblad.

Possibly out of topic for this thread, but we can pursue this discussion if you wish: It might be worth trying to look into the cause of the problem. Is it the focusing screen? (501CM are fairly recent and should have an Acute Matte or Acute Matte D screen). Or is the haptic of turning the focusing ring of the lens? C and CF offer quite a bit of resistance here. CFe/CFi are much easier to turn. Also, you might want to try a quick focusing handle (I think they are called this way).

Not trying to defend the Hasselblad by any means - the personal preference factor also plays a role here. Not every camera can appeal to everybody. The important is that you find something which works well for you, regardless of the brand written on it

 

[wiltw]

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

- Large Format 4x5, whatever camera i use

So what is your recommendations?

First a couple of principles:

• A conventional lens intended for focus at Infinity is optimized in its design for a limited closeness; at even closer distances (approaching 'macro') it may suffer in performance
• A 'macro' lens is optimized for very close focus distances (and out to Infinity) to perform well, and also it will have a flat-field design (unlike the slightly curved field found in many conventional lenses)

Typically, large format lenses with the APO lens designation very often are lenses designed for use in a 'process camera', for photolithography use in industry, and these are optimized to perform very well even at 1:1 or 1:2 (in addition to conventional use out to Infinity).

For medium format, you are pretty much limited to the 'macro' designated lens offered by the camera's manufacturer, and have little choice of FL. In the case of the Mamiya RB/RZ, the fact that you can rack the conventional lens farther out to focus closer does not mean you will achieve 'macro' lens performance, you will merely be 'focusing closer'.

 

[wiltw]

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

It is no worse inherently for large format than 135...the on-film DOF is identical at the same FL and aperture, assuming same repro ratio (e.g. 1:1) on both formats, the working distance is identical (4*FL at 1:1)...the only difference is that 135 is limited to a subject area 24x36mm while the large format (4x5) has a luxurious 93x120mm to work within.

As for apparent DOF, the larger formats apparently has advantage! I loaded parameters for 4 formats into an Excel spreadsheet by someone, which calculates both effective aperture and total DOF...

while the Magnification is identical for all and (as true of macro calculations) FL itself is immaterial, the result is that only the SUBJECT AREA is different, yet the Total DOF calculated is best for the larger format. I'm still puzzling thru why this is the case!

 

[Dan Fromm]

wiltw, the circles of confusion used in your example are the key to the calculated depths of field and they are totally insane. Totally. A CoC of 0.124 mm means 7 lp/mm. That's barely acceptable for contact printing, useless for enlarging.

I think that all of the CoCs in the table allow acceptable prints no larger than 4" x 5". This is ridiculously small.

Not only that, but shooting at 0.5x on, say, APX captures a subject roughly 30 mm x 45 mm. Shooting at 0.5x on, say, 4x5, captures a subject ~180 x 240. Your table compares shots that aren't comparable.

 

[wiltw]

wiltw, the circles of confusion used in your example are the key to the calculated depths of field and they are totally insane. Totally. A CoC of 0.124 mm means 7 lp/mm. That's barely acceptable for contact printing, useless for enlarging.

I think that all of the CoCs in the table allow acceptable prints no larger than 4" x 5". This is ridiculously small.

Not only that, but shooting at 0.5x on, say, APX captures a subject roughly 30 mm x 45 mm. Shooting at 0.5x on, say, 4x5, captures a subject ~180 x 240. Your table compares shots that aren't comparable.

Dan, the 0.032mm for the FF CofC is the value originally plugged into the Excel spreadsheet by the author. I did not question the validity of that number. In fact, one might say that the typical CofC value in the typical program is grossly overly large and does not represent what a person with 20/20 vision would distinguish as "small enough to fool me into thinking it is 'in focus' "! A DOF program that I just consulted uses 0.025mm, so although 0.032mm might be 'totally insane' by your standards, it should be recognized that it is not that far off from the logic that:

" if, for example, the long dimension of a 35 mm original image is enlarged to 25 cm (10 inches), the enlargement is approximately 7×, and the CoC for the original image is 0.2 mm / 7, or 0.029 mm."
​

In my extrapolation of CofC size for 4x5, I merely scaled that by the inverse of the lesser magnification required in a larger format size to achieve the same final size print. Perhaps that was something in error, since we are starting with 1:1 on film but really ending up with different final magnifications when we enlarge all images to 'fit 8x10' as we customarily do with conventional (non-macro) photos

 

[Dan Fromm]

We always have to think about what we're doing when we use software, especially software we didn't write ourselves.

0.032 * 5 = 0.16 That's ~ 6 lp/mm and will look a little soft viewed from 10". Please don't try to justify a mistake, just fess up and be more careful.

 

[TareqPhoto]

I am really not good at all in math or calculations, but from that table sheet or even from total discussions here it is almost like that 1:1 on 35mm digital format is nearly or equal to 1:2 on large format because it has larger DoF value?

So, let's say i have a large format lens that is 150mm or 180mm non macro, and i have another large format which is macro say 120 or 135, what will be the difference between the two [macro vs. non macro]?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Tareq, ignore that table. wiltw did us all a disservice by posting it. The arithmetic in it is correct but it is irrelevant, another word for verging on dishonest.

Depth of field is controlled completely by magnification and relative aperture (f/ number). Focal length has nothing to do with it and neither does format.

When people start talking about the effects of format on DoF they should be taking about DoF for the same image on film. A shot on "small format" has to be at lower magnification that the same shot on "large format." So, if the two shots are taken at the same aperture the "small format" shot will appear to have more DoF. If, however, the final prints from the two formats are the same size and contain the same image DoF in the final prints will be the same.

What matters is the final print, not what the film or sensor sees.

The difference between lenses for use at infinity and lenses for use closeup is that lenses intended to be used at infinity are optimized for a great distance. "Macro" lenses -- but not crappy little inexpensive macro-zoom lenses for small formats, with them "macro" is just marketing fluff -- are optimized for near distances. That's why a real macro lens will give better image quality for subjects at near distances than a general purpose lens will.

 

[wiltw]

We always have to think about what we're doing when we use software, especially software we didn't write ourselves.

0.032 * 5 = 0.16 That's ~ 6 lp/mm and will look a little soft viewed from 10". Please don't try to justify a mistake, just fess up and be more careful.

Not justifying anything, Dan! I EXPLAINED the number and made no attempt to defend it. I brought up the question of the validity of 4x5 CofC being scaled about 4x the 135 format CofC. If you want to furnish me your email address, I would be happy to foward the Excel spreadsheet so you can plug in whatever number your feel is valid.