Lens query for closeup/macro

... at the end of the day i just need a camera that can get me close with great DOF... i thought LF might be the way to go but some other folks arent so sure...
All you need is to do the maths (I used DOFMaster)

Using the equivalent focal lengths for each format:
  • A 4x5 camera, with a focal length of 90mm, an aperture of f/1.8, at 30cm from your subject, you get a DOF of 0.28cm.
  • A 35mm full frame camera, with a focal length of 28mm, an aperture of f/1.8, at 30cm from your subject, you get a DOF of 1.08cm.
  • An iPhone 7, with a focal length of 4.3mm, an aperture of f/1.8, at 30cm from your subject, you get a DOF of 6.93cm.
So, if you want "great" DOF, you need to go smaller, not larger.

I watched a nature documentary a while back and they were filming ants in their nests. There were some amazing shots of an ant virtually filling the frame, but with the background almost, if not completely, sharp. They showed how they achieved that - they used iPhone chips on the end of long thin arms to get close to the nest without overshadowing by the "camera".

Don't forget, to achieve 1:1 reproduction ratio, a 2cm subject will only occupy 2cm of a sheet of film that is 10cm x 12.5cm. To make it fill the frame, you would need a reproduction ratio of 5:1, which would require a humongous bellows extension compared to focal length. For a 90mm lens, you would need a bellows extension of 540mm! I can only just achieve that with my Ebony SV45Te. And then there's the need for either a lot more illumination or much longer exposure times. I know this because I've actually tried it.

For 1:1, of smaller objects, you might as well use a high spec, full frame, digital SLR; better depth of field and almost the same resolution in pixels per sq.mm (given that you would scan a sheet of 5x4)

You mention larger prints. With my Nikon D810 (36Mpx), I can easily get an A2 print without the need for interpolation software - A0 using something like Genuine Fractals. Don't forget, larger prints tend to be viewed at longer distances, thus what might seem "soft" at "reading distance" will appear perfectly sharp at 2 metres away.

As Paul says, honestly, if you want to do macro, don't look at LF. Instead, look for the best spec smartphone camera you can find ;)
 
Last edited:
Close-up work with large format is a splendid way to cultivate qualities of patience and humility, but it can be done.
An expensive high-end digital camera (perhaps with bellows) and focus stacking will produce the conventionally "best" overall result. You may not want the conventional "best" in which case, go ahead. We wish you well. Please can we see the results?
Nikon, and probably others, made bellows with movements and if you can find one, the Ilford KI Monobar is an interesting camera.
Has anybody mentioned lighting? At long bellows extensions, the screen can be quite dim and the exposure times (small aperture, extension factor and reciprocity failure) become rather extended.
 
Some information.
I've used a 150mm 5.6 Nikkor with and without a Nikon close-up lens attached; an enlarging lens reversed onto a lensboard with an adaptor; and a 75mm Tominon in a Polaroid shutter. (Can't afford the 120mm AM ED Nikkor.) All seemed adequate, although an enlarging lens without a shutter is fiddly. The Polaroid shutter is self-cocking which is a benefit, as there's less mucking about in the cramped space between lens and subject. I believe they were made for a document-copying camera. Quite cheap on Ebay. All seemed to work reasonably well. Any defects were created by me and my own highly-trained incompetence.
As Joanna says, depth of field increases as focal length decreases.

A possible alternative is to use a pinhole. The crucial factor is the relationship between pinhole diameter and pinhole-to-film distance. There are calculations for this, but that would need some research. A pinhole image can be surprisingly sharp, but the exposure times will certainly be long and swings and tilts will be ineffective. A pinhole image is too dim to see on the ground glass so you'd need to use dead reckoning. Some people use a second, much larger pinhole for aiming.
This is almost certainly not your preferred route.
 
The 75mm Tominon is an enlarger lens in a Polaroid shutter. Many of the Schneider enlarger lens can be fitted in a shutter either by screwing the whole lens into the front like the Tominon or the front and rear cells into aa shutter. I should add that some of the 75mm Tominons are front fitted, others have their cells fitted either side of the shutter.

When front fitted the shutters have no aperture controls, and accept a 39mm Leica thread lens, they use the lenses own aperture control.

Ian
 
As a corollary to Joanna's informative post, we should recall that depth of field is a somewhat arbitrary thing. It depends on what kind of resolution we want to see in the final print or output. Those large screens used in concerts have a resolution of about an inch (I'm guessing here) but they seem sharp enough at the usual viewing distance. I should also add that motion makes a difference to our perception of sharpness.
I believe that the original calculations assumed a normal person holding a 10x8 print at a normal reading distance. Magazine writers seem to have concentrated on resolution within the camera, which is of much more interest to their advertisers.
 
And remember that 1:1 reproduction ratio which is termed 'macro' for 35mm format cameras where it covers 36x 24mm, still images a field of 5" x 4" on a 5" x 4" camera. So copying a postcard on 5" x 4" would be near 1:1 but might not appear to actually be macro photography by many. Imaging a smaller field on LF is not as easy as it might sound. DoF is totally dependant on output - in camera resoultion is useful for some technical requirements but is academic for most.
 
Yes, a 1:1 5x4 shot of something flat can look exactly like an ordinary scan on a photocopier.
Some people have done interesting work on a scanner.
 
Yes, a 1:1 5x4 shot of something flat can look exactly like an ordinary scan on a photocopier.
Some people have done interesting work on a scanner.
I've seen such images and they are truly fascinating; causing one to ask how they were done :)
 
hi all,
ive been researching and thinking... and making some pictures!
I already have a really right stuff macro rail for macro work, but since starting this thread ive been trying to do more focus stacking to see if i can improve my work. i used to not have much patience with focus stacking, but now im keener on developing this technique.
its all about the output for me, and after much consideration i think LF wont help me much meet my aims.

Ive also taken a look at new and second hand bellows for digital macro, theres a novoflex BALPRO T/S bellows, which looks like a high quality piece of kit, which i may acquire to give me 4x5 style focal plane adjustments, ill need to check my lens image circles etc before i purchase.

i think the combination of the bellows (or even an older bellows off ebay) and the focus stacking will give me the focal plane and DOF i need.

thanks everyone for your input.
 
Image circles, like all lens data, are normally given for infinity focus. At 1:1 the lens to film distance is doubled so that the image circle is doubled too. To be more exact, the circle of illumination is doubled. The circle of sharp focus may be different, depending on the design of the lens, but it should still be substantially greater than at infinity.
 
When I originally trained, back in the early 60’s we used to use a MPP Mk VII regularly for macro work, the triple extension with the 150mm Xénon lens was fine for the lower magnifications, for higher mag the 90mm Angulon worked OK. It.s worth reversing the lens if possible as standard lenses are optimised to give best results at standard magnifications, reversing the lens helps to alter the conjugates.
Depth of field is obviously a problem, so small apertures and lots of light are order of the day.
 
When I began macro work in the late 1960's many magazines and books recommended a Tessar (or type) lens reversed for macro use rather than a fast plasmat. While that was for 35mm or MF SLRs in theory it's equally true for non symmetrical LF L lenses, the 90mm f6.8 Angulon is symmetrical.

The issue with reversing a 150mm f4.5 Xenar is the Compur (or Copal) #1 shutter has different threads for the front and rear cells so it's not a simple swap. The 135mm f4.7 or the 150mm f5.6 Xenars are in a #0 shutters so cells can be reversed, as front and rear threads are identical.

I just bought a 150mm f4.5 Xenar for £20.40 so tried reversing it :D The lens cells are in excellent condition so I couldn't resist :)

Ian
 
Tom,

Tom, I will spare both you and myself the math here. Let me put forward that when I was young and hungry I lucked into a job as Yale’s biological photographer. I thought I was putting that time to good use by testing every lens I could borrow on my 4x5 Linhof Color, a solid camera well-suited to the macro work I did all day. Most of it was done at 1:1 (same size) or 2:1 (twice life size), sometimes for relaxation, 3:1. All of it very exacting and done to high standards.

I’ll spare you the full list, but after two years and hundreds of 5x4 Plus-X negatives, I had shaken my kit down to a 150 Sironar-N, a 90 Super Angulon (rarely used) and a couple of Zeiss Luminars. For color I used 35mm.

Then one day on a lark I went out into the sunshine with the same Linhof and a lens from the shelf that I rarely used: a 9 ½” Goerz Red Dot Artar, f9, iin a Rapax shutter. I walked along a railroad track in the early morning light and made picture at about one-third life size of a raccoon skull, intact but bleached by the sun. I made it at f16 (marked) and used rear swings to get every part of the skull sharp. I focused with my Schneider 4x loupe, just as I always did.

When that negative came out of the wash, I screamed. I am not making that up. It was by far the sharpest, most detailed negative I had ever made. I could see the fine pores on the smooth bone of the eye sockets. The point source of a newly risen sun on a cold, clear day helped, of course. Plus a Majestic tripod … solid as a brick.

That experience changed everything for me. After that I acquired a 12” Artar (for the coverage) and later, a 203 f7.7 Kodak Ektar, coated.* All three were symmetrical dialytes of course, and I was using them precisely as the lens designers had intended. I am still using that Kodak lens.

Of course I didn’t limit myself to those lenses. As the years went by, I acquired and used Symmars, Apo Symmars, Sironars, and even Commercial Ektars. All of them wonderful lenses – but they all did their best when used as the lens designers had intended them to be used.

You get the point, I am sure. Study the literature to see what the designers had in mind for lenses made since the 1950’s, and you won’t go wrong. Modern coatings help, but only a little, honestly. Kingslake’s text on lens designs is still useful.

To address another point in your note: I had a full range of Leica gear in that studio and even a Rollei 66. The sheet film in 4x5 made everything easier, and honestly, faster. Especially in the darkroom.

And a final note: that 203 Ektar was a gift to me from Ansel Adams, who said at the time, “This is my favorite lens.” I am not making that up, either.
 
If you are really lucky you can find the 203mm f7.7 Ektar in a Compur shutter. Here in the UK the early British made version were in an Epsilon, then Prontor SVS, neither shutter has a pre-view lever so you need to sse T or B, later ones in the Syncro Compur #0 but thee is a pre-view lever.are rarer.

Very late US Eastman Kodak made 203mm f7.7 Ektars are also in Syncro Compur shutters, marked Graphex but it's the larger #1 shutter. The coating on early 203mm Ektars(US & UK) is soft, Kodak call them Lumenised, later coated versions are very much better

As Brian has said the Dialyte design has versatily, but with so many air/glass interfaces uncotaed Diatytes have low contrast, the earlier 203mm f7.7 Anastigmat is the un-coated version of the Ektar.

Ian
 
Back
Top