Macro / Micro Lenses For 4x5

Old-N-Feeble · Jul 5, 2014

Okay... not 4x5 but 6x12cm.

Years ago I bought a 105mm Comparon for magnifications greater than 1:1 and a 210mm Repro-Claron for use around 1:1 and less. It's been awhile since I bought them and my memory fails me but, as I recall, those are pretty decent options. I have plenty of bellows draw for either. I don't want to spend a fortune on acquiring the absolute best lenses available especially since I was never that great at photomacrophy anyway. This will be for occasional play and I just want very good results provided I do my part. These are also very small and lightweight which is a plus for me. Most likely I'll only shoot macro/micro indoors in controlled lighting conditions. I also have a 63mm f/2.8 EL Nikkor with adapters to use it front-mounted to a Copal #1 shutter, both forward and reverse, but I'm thinking the magnification range will be too challenging for me these days.

Any caveats or suggestions?

Dan Fromm · Jul 5, 2014

Schneider recommends the Comparon for enlargements from 2x to 6x, says its best at 4x. This translates to taking at 1:2 to 1:6, best at 1:4, with the lens mounted normally and to taking at 2:1 to 6:1, best at 4:1, with the lens reversed. The lens' cells should be direct fits in a Compur/Copal #0 shutter (that's what mine is in). If yours is in barrel, put it in a #0. Since a #0 is symmetrical, reversing the lens is a simple matter of swapping the cells front to rear.

The Repro Claron is symmetrical, doesn't have to be reversed to be used above 1:1. Using it a 1:1 will require a bit more than 400 mm of bellows, that's the only drawback.

There are better lenses for your application but the ones you have are quite acceptable. In four inchers, I prefer a 100/6.3 Neupolar (very uncommon, usually expensive) and a 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar to my 105/4.5 Comparon but my preferred lenses are, by test, slightly better than a known good 100/6.3 Luminar (not that common, pricey). The only 100/6.3 Luminar I've owned was used and had been abused. A well whipped dog. To say it again, my 105 Comparon is ok, just not the best. I wouldn't feel terribly deprived if forced to use only it.

I've had and tried out one Repro Claron, a 55/8. It was very good closeup but because of its small maximum aperture not at all competitive with faster 50 - 60 mm macro lenses.

All that said, use what you have and upgrade only if the results you get are unacceptable and can be blamed on the lenses, not on poor technique.

Old-N-Feeble · Jul 5, 2014

Thanks, Dan. Your always of great help.

I should have been more thorough with my OP. This 105 Comparon is mounted in a Copal #0 with the correct aperture scale. I bought it for greater than 1:1 magnification. The 210 Repro-Claron is also in a #0 with the correct scale and I bought it for at or near 1:1 magnification. I know the Repro-Claron is a symmetrical dyalite design. Heck, the 203 Ektar I have may be just as good as the Repro-Claron and I imagine, in actual use, they're probably interchangeable.

I don't want to search for weeks or months to find the best of the best and I can't afford to spend that much anyway. So... Luminar or Neupolar ain't gonna happen.

Just a thought... Which would you choose, Dan, a late 203 Ektar in Compur shutter or a 210 Repro-Claron in Copal? I think that might actually be a challenging question even for you.

Dan Fromm · Jul 5, 2014

If I had to choose between a 203/7.7 Ektar and a 210/9 Repro Claron for closeup work I'd choose the Repro Claron. It is a newer design optimized for 1:1 and it isn't clear what magnification the Ektar is optimized for. The Ektar was sold as a process lens, from time to time in a barrel threaded externally at the front to screw into a prism is offered on eBay. This is a hint but I'm not going to take it.

As I said, use what you have and see if they please. If the results are poor and you can eliminate operator error as the cause, then start thinking about looking for better lenses. FWIW, from time to time I get poor results from lenses that ought to give good ones. So far that fault has always been mine. Lenses in obviously poor condition don't count.

Old-N-Feeble · Jul 5, 2014

Okay... from what I've read the 203 Ektar is a symmetrical dyalite and performs very well anywhere from 1:1 to infinity, essentially just like all the similar reprographic symmetrical dyalite lenses. I just figured maybe you had more info on the matter because you usually do.

Dan Fromm · Jul 5, 2014

The Repro Claron uses newer glasses too. But since you have both lenses (203/7.7 Ektar, 210/9 Repro Claron), try them both out. Then you'll know which, if either, of the two lenses you have in hand perform closeup for you.

Asking people who don't have access to gear you own to pass judgement on it doesn't seem very smart.

Old-N-Feeble · Jul 5, 2014

I get your point and agree. No need to get personal. It's just that you have more knowledge regarding lens design and performance than most so I was hoping you knew.

Dan Fromm · Jul 5, 2014

Old-N-Feeble said:
I get your point and agree. No need to get personal. It's just that you have more knowledge regarding lens design and performance than most so I was hoping you knew.

Design be damned! If you want to know how a used lens performs, ask it. Don't try to draw conclusions from its layout.

As for the 203/7.7 KA/Ektar being symmetrical, I don't think so. Not all dialytes are perfectly symmetrical (front cell = reversed rear cell, i.e., with outer elements having the same radii and made from the same glass, inner elements having the same radii and made from the same glass, inter-element spacing the same in both cells and both cells the same distance from the diaphragm). I can't get my 203/7.7 KA apart to check whether the two cells have the same focal lengths (if not, not symmetrical) so I can't be perfectly sure it is asymmetrical but I can measure the outer elements' diameters. The rear is larger. And this is the glass, not the metal.

Old-N-Feeble · Jul 6, 2014

Thank you, Dan. I like how you don't mince your words. Must be your Frank-o (Franco) heritage.

The truth is I don't ambulate well these days. I can't spend much time experimenting... none really. I'm not even sure I can start shooting again at all. This is why I'm selling my 8x10 camera and all the lenses dedicated to that format. I'm scaling my equipment down to a single lightweight 4x5 with a 6x12cm RFB. Regarding my lens questions; I'm just trying to pair down my options so I don't have to fiddle with small details in the field. Hence, my bothersome and perhaps ignorant questions. I'm not intentionally being lazy. I just don't have much fight left in me.

The best thing about the internet is the nearly endless information at one's fingertips. The difficult and time-consuming part is filtering through all that information and the many highly variegated opinions, both objective and subjective, to arrive at what is "probably" the best solution to a problem. Dan, you're at or near the top of a relatively short list of trusted informational sources.

Old-N-Feeble · Jul 6, 2014

HEY... Why is Dan the only one trying to help me with this?!

Dan Fromm · Jul 6, 2014

I can only speculate about why others won't help you. It could be that you resist advice too much.

You seem to be trying to do what's best. Settling for good enough is easier and good enough means good enough. You've asked for help in selecting the best of many similar lenses. All of the lenses you've mentioned are better than good enough. Let go of aiming for perfection and be arbitrary. Since weight is a major issue for you, select the lightest ones and go forward. Life's too short to waste time on trying to select the best, um, pea in a pod.

Old-N-Feeble · Jul 8, 2014

Received a message from the seller... lens on the way. I think I'll keep the 203 Ektar too though.

Old-N-Feeble · Jul 8, 2014

Dan Fromm said:
I can only speculate about why others won't help you. It could be that you resist advice too much.

You seem to be trying to do what's best. Settling for good enough is easier and good enough means good enough. You've asked for help in selecting the best of many similar lenses. All of the lenses you've mentioned are better than good enough. Let go of aiming for perfection and be arbitrary. Since weight is a major issue for you, select the lightest ones and go forward. Life's too short to waste time on trying to select the best, um, pea in a pod.

It's not that I'm resisting advice... I just tend to often need much convincing. I'm often told I'm extremely pragmatic. I suppose I am but I'm not a brick wall either. One thing I can fully agree with is that life is, indeed, far too short and I'm probably wasting precious little time nit-picking over little things. Maybe that's my true lot in life... to nit-pick rather than produce. I did for others for so long that I can't remember what it was like to do just for me. Maybe I just can't anymore.

DREW WILEY · Jul 9, 2014

Once you get down to magnification greater than about 1:1 a dedicated macro lens might be useful. Otherwise, I extremely good closeups with both ordinary G-Claron lenses and the comparable Fuji A-series. So as far as I'm concerned, unless you're specializing in shots of diamond rings
or beetles, no need for something odd. Most dialytes aren't going to do as good a job, though some Apo-Ronars and process lenses are close
range corrected.

Old-N-Feeble · Jul 12, 2014

Since I have a 210mm Repro-Claron and I like the way dyalite lenses render I might look for a 135mm Repro-Claron. I don't think I'd have a need for a macro lens much wider or longer and both will nicely cover 6x12cm or 4x5in at near 1:1 magnification.

Anyone have a nice 135mm Repro-Claron in shutter with correct f/scale for a decent price?

benveniste · Jul 12, 2014

I picked up a 120mm f/5.6 AM-Nikkor from B&H during their blowout sale. I finally got to use it today, so I won't know the results until I get the films back. Suffice it to say that Rhododendron State Park had very few blooms to choose from.

On the other hand, I had forgotten how nice it was to work with Fuji Quickloads.

Old-N-Feeble · Jul 13, 2014

You lucky dog!! Post some pics when you can.

Old-N-Feeble · Jul 15, 2014

Assume my 210 Repro-Claron is dedicated to 1:1 images and I need a shorter lens for greater magnification. Which lens would you keep? A 135mm Repro-Claron or 105mm Comparon? At these magnifications would you shoot them wide open or closed down a stop or two?

RalphLambrecht · Jul 15, 2014

Old-N-Feeble said:
Okay... not 4x5 but 6x12cm.

Years ago I bought a 105mm Comparon for magnifications greater than 1:1 and a 210mm Repro-Claron for use around 1:1 and less. It's been awhile since I bought them and my memory fails me but, as I recall, those are pretty decent options. I have plenty of bellows draw for either. I don't want to spend a fortune on acquiring the absolute best lenses available especially since I was never that great at photomacrophy anyway. This will be for occasional play and I just want very good results provided I do my part. These are also very small and lightweight which is a plus for me. Most likely I'll only shoot macro/micro indoors in controlled lighting conditions. I also have a 63mm f/2.8 EL Nikkor with adapters to use it front-mounted to a Copal #1 shutter, both forward and reverse, but I'm thinking the magnification range will be too challenging for me these days.

Any caveats or suggestions?

try if you can mount the lensturned around.that will improve their close-upoptical performancebut,of course , operating the shutter that way ma be a real problem

TheFlyingCamera · Jul 15, 2014

I'll have to dig out my 120 AM Nikkor and shoot a few with it as well. I found mine as a trade-in at my local camera store a few years ago even cheaper than the B&H blowout sale - the only thing missing was the box and the rear lens cap.

Old-N-Feeble · Jul 15, 2014

I'm confident the 210 Repro=Claron is fine at 1:1. I know the Comparon is okay at 4:1-1:4 depending on which direction the cells are screwed in. Is the 135 Repro-Claron better than the Comparon in the 2x-4x magnification range... and at what aperture?

Dan Fromm · Jul 15, 2014

RalphLambrecht said:
try if you can mount the lensturned around.that will improve their close-upoptical performancebut,of course , operating the shutter that way ma be a real problem

Ralphie, the OP's 105/4.5 Comparon is a direct fit in a #0 shutter. The 210 Repro Claron he asked about is too. The 135 Repro Claron is a direct fit in a #00 shutter.

#00 and #0 Compurs have the wonderful property that their front and rear threads are identical. Reversing a lens that fits one of these little beauties is a simple matter of swapping the cells around.

The OP said that his 63 El Nikkor can be front mounted on a #1 facing both directions.

So why did you bring up turning the lens board around? General principles are useful, but sometimes they'll take you straight over a cliff.

Why are we paying attention to the OP? He's so afraid of making a mistake that he's never going to do anything but pester people.

Old-N-Feeble · Jul 15, 2014

Ouch...

Old-N-Feeble · Jul 15, 2014

My problem has always been that I plan for two weeks to make a two-day trip. I've been that way since I was a little kid. I know that's strange but I can't help myself.

benveniste · Jul 19, 2014

Old-N-Feeble said:
You lucky dog!! Post some pics when you can.

I'm afraid I missed the focus a bit, but...

Macro / Micro Lenses For 4x5

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency