a 180mm lens that would make an awesome macro lens for 8x10

Discussion in 'Large Format Cameras and Accessories' started by Jordan.K, Jun 17, 2012.

  1. Jordan.K

    Jordan.K Subscriber

    Messages:
    259
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    I am looking for an 180mm lens that would work well as a macro/ close up lens for 8x10. I know there are dedicated macro lenses, however their prices are beyond the range I wold like to spend. This for some copy stand work. Thanks in advance.
     
  2. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,035
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    An 180mm enlarger lens would be a good option a Componon should fit in a shutter, not sure what size though. schneider sold Componons as Macro lenses at one time.

    Ian
     
  3. TimmyMac

    TimmyMac Subscriber

    Messages:
    308
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2010
    Location:
    Guelph, Onta
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    The G-Claron is optimized for 1:1 and a 180 will cover 8x10 at that magnification. If you're willing to go up to a 210 or 240 it'll cover at infinity as well. Cheap, small, and light, and they fit in shutters!
     
  4. holmburgers

    holmburgers Member

    Messages:
    4,423
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Location:
    Rochester NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Take this with a grain of salt cause I'm going off purely anecdotal evidence, but how about a Schneider-Kreuznach 180mm Symmar convertible?

    I've heard that this symmetrical and relatively simple design keeps a very flat field and I'm guessing(?) it might cover 8x10" at macro. It's suggested for 5x7" as a normal lens.
     
  5. Dan Fromm

    Dan Fromm Member

    Messages:
    4,133
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Not symmetrical, no simpler than any other 6/4 plasmat, and not particularly good close up.

    The OP asked an unanswerable question and ran away. Unanswerable because without knowing the range of magnifications he wants to work at we can't know how much coverage is needed. He didn't even say why he wanted a 180.
     
  6. holmburgers

    holmburgers Member

    Messages:
    4,423
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Location:
    Rochester NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    There you go; salty.

    I forget where I read this, but I recall that these old Symmars are good for copy work; a poor man's process lens. That's why I thought it may perhaps be good for marcro.
     
  7. johnielvis

    johnielvis Member

    Messages:
    940
    Joined:
    May 21, 2010
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    190 wide field ektar--kodak recommends for closeups--will give you incredible movement potential for macro with huge macro image circle--covers 8x10 straight off too. see the camera-eccentric website for the kodak lenses--tells all about it
     
  8. Jordan.K

    Jordan.K Subscriber

    Messages:
    259
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    I wanted a 180mm for close up work on a copy stand. It may not always be macro work, but all will be done at much close than infinity. I can not afford a 180 specifically designed for macro, so I was wondering which 180mm would work best for close up work. I believe I also would want it to be multicoated as the lights I am using are bright and often at either side of the lens..... if someone thinks a single coated lens would not be affected by such a lighting situation please feel to let me know and I may feel good about getting a g-claron. I am also considering a 210mm.
     
  9. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,035
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Tessar lenses are OK for close up work, and you can get good 180mm or 210mm Xenars for very reasonable prices. I wouldn't be too worried about multicoating, just use a good lens hood and shield the lighting if your worried. I used a 150mm Xenar at work on a copy camera in the late 70's & 80's and it gave excellent results.

    Another option, probably the most suitable on a budget, is the 203mm (8") f7.7 Ektar, as it's a Dialyte it's excellent at all distances including extreme close-ups (according to Kodak literature) and again inexpensive these days many people rate them very highly. The later versions have deeper coatings. Kodak made these lenses in Rochester as well as the UK, the British version was sold in an Epsilon/Prontor/Comur #0 shutter, the US ones in Supermatics which aren't compatible to other shutters.

    I have a 203mm Ektar and it is very sharp even close up, mine's remarkable well coated.

    Ian
     
  10. graywolf

    graywolf Member

    Messages:
    167
    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2009
    Location:
    Boone, North
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Actually, the 203mm Ektar seems to have become something of a collectors item over here in the USA. If you looked around, you used to be able to get one for $50, now I see them going for $400+. At that price there are a lot of cheaper options.
     
  11. Old-N-Feeble

    Old-N-Feeble Member

    Messages:
    4,018
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Location:
    South Texas
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    True about the 203mm Ektar but deals are still available. And... it's not "optimized" for 1:1 but infinity. You might be comparing the 210mm G-Glaron (optimized for close work) with the 203mm Ektar... among many other popular older dialyte designs also optimized for close work. IMO, the Kodak Ektar kicks a$$ for landscape work. The 203 Ektar is actually sharpest wide open at infinity whilst the G-Claron must be stopped down to f/16 or smaller. Think about that for just one moment...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 23, 2012
  12. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,035
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Here you're wrong the 203mm (8") Ektar "retains it's correction to a high degree when used for extreme close-ups", Kodak's words not mine. Dialytes seem to be fairly unique in this respect. My recent results indicate this is probably true.

    Ian
     
  13. Old-N-Feeble

    Old-N-Feeble Member

    Messages:
    4,018
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Location:
    South Texas
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Yes, but the G-Claron is optimized for close-up images while the 203 Ektar is optimized for at or near infinity. Both work well either way but neither are optimized for both.
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. TimmyMac

    TimmyMac Subscriber

    Messages:
    308
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2010
    Location:
    Guelph, Onta
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    The Fujinon A is optimized for 1:1 like the G-Claron and is multicoated, if the single-coating is what's steering you away from the G. Similarly 180mm will get you to 8x10 at 1:1 and the 240 will cover 8x10.

    Costs a lot more than the G-Claron, though.
     
  16. John Kasaian

    John Kasaian Member

    Messages:
    1,030
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2002
    I've used a 159mm Wollensak "yellow dot" WA Velostigmat for 1:1 and I enjoy the "look" in particular with warmtone papers, but it depends a lot on the subject (I was shooting marine specimens and the Wolly WA Velo was "the bomb" IMHO)
     
  17. Steve Goldstein

    Steve Goldstein Subscriber

    Messages:
    598
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2007
    Location:
    MA, USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The 7-1/2" (190mm) Ilex Acuton is supposed to be quite good up to, I think, half life-size per posts by Lynn Jones on the Large Format Photography Forum. Lynn was involved with Ilex at the time they were designed and produced. I have one kicking around here - way too many 180s and 210s - but have never tried it for macro. They show up occasionally on eBay in the $150 range, though the 215 in Ilex shutter is much more common.
     
  18. jimgalli

    jimgalli Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,571
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Tonopah Neva
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    I was surprised it took 14 answers before anyone mentioned the gorgeous little Fujinon 180mm f9A lens! And yes, I'd look to the 203 Ektar, coated, next. A 210mm Schneider Repro Claron, not necessarily the G-Claron, would be worth a 3rd slot.
     
  19. Bob Carnie

    Bob Carnie Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,419
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto-Onta
    Shooter:
    Med. Format RF
    I too am looking for a lens for an 8x10 camera where I can take small objects and get a size on film up to 3 x size of object. I have a 210mm but am open to other lenses. I would also like to know what lens would be optimal or made for this purpose and where would I source one to find pricing.

    I have hundreds of objects about 1-3 inches in height that I would like to see large on 8x10 sheet film.

     
  20. Dan Fromm

    Dan Fromm Member

    Messages:
    4,133
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Bob, there's a rule of thumb to the effect of "the higher the magnification, the shorter the lens." This because, for a given focal length the higher the magnification, the more extension needed. How much ya got?
     
  21. jimgalli

    jimgalli Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,571
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Tonopah Neva
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    [​IMG]
    4 racers

    Made with a 9" petzval type. My strange depth of field requirements are not the norm, nor for everybody, but just to point out that with this type of photography bellows extension and stability is really more the problem to solve than which lens. In this case I've used an ancient studio camera with 8X10 back (this may have actually been 5X7!) and a rolling stand with table top for the camera. Stable stable stable, and 36" of bellows to play with, that will not sag.

    I also always tell people to start with the ordinary 150mm Componon that's already on the enlarger. Turn it around backwards. Yes, matilda, at the extensions you'll need for 3X it'll cover 8X10 very nicely, and it'll be operating within it's design parameters.
     
  22. Bob Carnie

    Bob Carnie Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,419
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto-Onta
    Shooter:
    Med. Format RF
    I have 36 inch of workable bellows ... I am using an old century camera with no shutter, its light tight as I have gone through a few boxes of film as late as last sunday.

     
  23. Bob Carnie

    Bob Carnie Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,419
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto-Onta
    Shooter:
    Med. Format RF
    I have a 240 , 180 , 150 mm enlarger lenses that I could use, I also have a 150 mm camera lens.
    Would any or all of these work?
     
  24. Dan Fromm

    Dan Fromm Member

    Messages:
    4,133
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Well, the magic rule is: extension (distance from lens' rear node to film plane) = focal length * (1 + magnification). So the longest lens you can use is 9" and a bit shorter would probably be better. For most lenses, the rear node is near the diaphragm.

    There's another magic rule, to the effect that if the lens is intended to be used at magnifications below 1:1 (that's all taking and enlarging lenses) it should be reversed when used at magnifications > 1:1. The big exceptions are symmetrical (with identical front and rear cells) lenses; this includes Apo-Saphirs (heliar type), some, perhaps not all, dagor types and most if not all dialyte type process lenses.

    Good luck, have fun,

    Dan
     
  25. Leigh B

    Leigh B Member

    Messages:
    1,035
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Location:
    Maryland, US
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I have a Fujinon CM-W 180/5.6 in a Copal #1 available in EXC condition for $395 including shipping in CONUS.
    It's an almost-symmetrical design of six elements in five groups. It takes 67mm filters.
    Here's a schematic drawing of the lens: http://www.mayadate.org/pix/Fujinon_CM-W.png

    This is the later EBC-coated version with lettering on the outside of the barrel.
    The IC is 260mm @ infinity (8x10 diagonal is 325mm), so it will cover a range of close-up work, not just 1:1.
    It would even work @ infinity with vignetting of the corners.

    FFL is 170.7mm, so 1:1 requires a bellows draw of 170.7+180 = 350.7mm (13.8").

    I can provide photos if you're interested in it.

    - Leigh
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 28, 2012
  26. Leigh B

    Leigh B Member

    Messages:
    1,035
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Location:
    Maryland, US
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hi Dan,

    Not meaning to quibble, but...

    If you use 1:1 as the close-focus limit, your maximum lens FL is about 1/2 the bellows draw, which would be 18" in this case.

    The other 2xFL (@ 1:1) is in front of the lens and is not involved in the bellows draw calculations.

    - Leigh