Question Regarding 35mm/MF lenses for Macro on 4x5

[EBJohnson]

Alright, so I've been thinking about macro on 4x5, off and on, as I learn more about how Large Format works. I'm still doing a lot of translation between smaller formats and this newer large format... So I got to thinking about the lenses I have and if they could be put to use on the bigger camera? I know the image circle isn't there, but also... if I'm thinking macro then the bellows draw will potentially get me there... maybe... in theory...

So here's my question, a) is it feasible/possible to do? b) has anyone here tried this? c) if yes, can it be done to interesting effect? Or is it a fools errand?

Right now I'm thinking about my Nikon AI 35/1.4 as a fun way to start this, and while the 16/2.8 is kind of a weird lens, it might be fun too... but the brightness (which may not directly translate) in conjunction with the loss of light in macro is what made me think about it. The experiment would be conducted on a Cambo SC camera. So... extension shouldn't be an issue... probably... 🤷*♂️

Would love to hear opinions or thoughts...

[peter brooks]

There are lots of folks far more knowledgable than me on this forum but I would think that it is the angle of view of the lens that you should look at - think of it as a cone, as you focus closer to something the bellows extension gets longer, and thus the cone at the film is bigger.

So lenses that barely cover at 'normal' distances may cover well at macro distances.

If you're set on using lens not designed for LF I would think that MF is a better starting point than 35mm (now where did I put that 120mm S-Planar?). Macro normally requires a greater depth of field so utilises small apertures, unless you are after some very shallow depth of field effects. Think heavy, steady tripod and long exposures.

If you don't want the hassle of rigging a shutter then use paper negs and a removable 'top hat' to cover and uncover the lens. With low light and a small aperture you could probably have a cup of tea while you took the shot.

[abruzzi]

The image circle of a 35mm camera lens seems like it will be really small. Here is a link of someone doing it with a medium format fisheye:

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/gonefishin.pdf

Some of the medium format lenses have the benefit that they have shutters built in (if you can trigger them from the lens directly.)

[EBJohnson]

I'm definitely not "set on it"... since as of right now, I have no way of mounting a lens to a board. But the idea of the wider lenses in macro space is appealing. I've had lots of fun shooting the aforementioned 35/1.4 at the 8" MOD because it has such a cool look. That in conjunction with the thought of doing some action figure portraits, it seemed like a way to force perspective.

And while the MF lenses are not an out of the question option, because they are faster than the LF wide I have... I don't get the same kind of options focal length wise... with the exception of an Arsat Zodiak 30/3.5 I have. That said, nothing is off the table yet.

I had also pretty much relegated my options to LOOOOOOOOOONG exposures just as matter of bellows factor... But the idea o ftaking advantage of a f/1.4 for focusing and stopping down to f/16 to shoot didn't seem like much more of a burden... But I don't know... It may just be a thing that I think about and never try...

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. Image circle grows with magnification. Lenses for 35mm still have to cover 43 mm.

Here's Emmanuel Bigler's suggestion, taken from http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?
67361-Calculating-lens-coverage


Covered diameter = (nominal image circle) (1 + M)
Where M is the magnification ratio

From which I calculate that the lowest magnification at which a lens for a 35mm camera will cover 4x5 is ~ 3.5:1. For best results the lens will have to be reversed.

Whether this will work for you depends on what you mean by macro. If you want to work at lowish magnifications -- from 1:2 up -- your best bet would be a 150 mm process or enlarging lens. I've shot two 150/9 Apo-Ronars against two 150/9 G-Clarons, the Apo-Ronars were better. The 150/5.6 Componar isn't bad at those magnifications -- by an odd coincidence that won't bear close examination, I have one of them too -- and is inexpensive. It is a tessar type lens, has to be reversed for working above 1:1. The cells are direct fits in a #0 shutter.

Why 150 mm? Because it gives better working distance, makes lighting the subject easier. The F-mount flange-to-film distance is 46.5 mm, and that's the minimum working distance of a reversed F-mount lens.

For higher magnifications, by all means try a reversed F-mount Nikkor. If I were you, I'd use a 55/3.5 (any version or vintage) or 55/2.8 MicroNikkor instead of the two you mentioned.

[EBJohnson]

Here is a link of someone doing it with a medium format fisheye:

This is promising.


Whether this will work for you depends on what you mean by macro.

In this particular train of thought, I'm definitely thinking super macro... well above 1:1... based on what I was thinking... 3:1 - 5:1... depending on the lens in question... I had not considered reversing the lens.

[Dan Fromm]

TIn this particular train of thought, I'm definitely thinking super macro... well above 1:1... based on what I was thinking... 3:1 - 5:1... depending on the lens in question... I had not considered reversing the lens.

Ah. Not easy, and very small depth of field. Yr Cambo SC should have enough extension to get much more magnification than you want with the lenses you named.

But and however it appears that although you have a dream you don't know much about photomacrography. The first link in this https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138978-Where-to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses discussion is to a list of links etc. of interest to, mainly, LF photographers. It includes an annotated list of books on closeup photography. Click, click again, download, read, decide and buy the book of your choice. They're all relatively inexpensive at on-line used book sellers sucn as abebooks.com, alibris.com, amazon.com, bn.com (no kidding!), ...

[EBJohnson]

But and however it appears that although you have a dream you don't know much about photomacrography.

Is it not the point to learn? At least that was in large point the reason for moving from 35mm to MF to now LF... since it all ties in somehow. Beyond that is all started in Non-Linear Post Production... so... learn me up ��

[Dan Fromm]

Is it not the point to learn? At least that was in large point the reason for moving from 35mm to MF to now LF... since it all ties in somehow. Beyond that is all started in Non-Linear Post Production... so... learn me up ��

You may think that you've asked a simple question for which a simple answer will suffice. In fact you've asked an apparently simple question that wants a book length answer.

The bulletin board -- that's what this forum is -- isn't a good medium for teaching or learning a lot. Books are much better. I've directed you to some good ones on closeup work.

[EBJohnson]

You may think that you've asked a simple question for which a simple answer will suffice. In fact you've asked an apparently simple question that wants a book length answer.

The bulletin board -- that's what this forum is -- isn't a good medium for teaching or learning a lot. Books are much better. I've directed you to some good ones on closeup work.

I in no way considered it an easy question. It was a question that I lacked any idea of where to start. Beyond asking if any had tried it and if there were directions to be pointed towards.

Now I have things to look at before asking more questions.

[Bernice Loui]

Start here:
http://www.savazzi.net/photography/default.htm


Monorail view camera is highly preferred for "macro" work. Far more ideal would be a modular mono rail camera system like Sinar as this system has a shutter option allowing virtually any lens to be used within what image recording device (film to digital small to large image recording device). Usable optics are limited to what can be mounted to the lens board. The entire camera set up can be mounted to a base board, or the object to be imaged set up on a camera standard with a board to support the object to be imaged. This same board can be altered/modified to support lighting needed achieve the image goals.

Any lens for 35mm can be made to cover 8x10 sheet film by reverse mounting the lens knowing the scene/image projected to the 35mm film or digital imager IS much larger than the image recording means (35mm film or similar). This is much a matter of moving in close enough to achieve the image reproduction ratios needed. As the image reproduction ratio approach 1:1 aka "life size" lens performance is likely going to suffer LOTs as these optics were never designed to be used this way. As for large apertures ala f1.4 and such.. the depth of focus becomes extremely thin with increasing magnification ala image reproduction ratios. This will impose very extreme requirements on film/imager flatness and camera/set up precision/accuracy. Think microscope and more.

The FAR better way is to apply proper macro-micro image making tools and lighting methods as needed. While ok and great to experiment, would the goal of all this to achieve a known image goal or simply experiment to experiment.. ? Yes, there can and will be learning that will happen from this, but it is far easier to
learn from the experience of others that have already done this decades ago then apply this recorded knowledge/experiences said experiment. Fully understanding the experiment must figure into this or the activity becomes aimless with no real or significant goal(s).


Bernice





Is it not the point to learn? At least that was in large point the reason for moving from 35mm to MF to now LF... since it all ties in somehow. Beyond that is all started in Non-Linear Post Production... so... learn me up ��

[Greg]

I'd try to acquire one or more of these books:

CLOSE-UP PHOTOGRAPHY & PHOTOMACROGRAPHY Kodak N-12 publication

The Manual of Close-Up Photography by Lester Lefkowitz

PHOTOGRAPHY FOR SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION by Alfreds A. Blaker

All three are pre-digital and cover working with MF and LF systems and techniques. Try finding them used on eBay. I took a quick look and all of $30.00 would get you all three books within a week or so. Beware of sellers/dealers asking exorbitantly high prices for these three publications.... these books are anything but rare books.

I seem to remember that some Sinar Norma publications also covered photomacrography. I don't recall which publications so maybe someone else could chime in here?

Simply Google the term photomacrography, and you should find a lot of free info and answers.

[John Layton]

Reversed 55mm 3.5 Micro-Nikkor on 4x5 film. Not a great copy...in actuality the entire image is very sharp! (except the tops of the pinion shafts, which are outside of the DOF)

220307

[EBJohnson]

Reversed 55mm 3.5 Micro-Nikkor on 4x5 film. Not a great copy...in actuality the entire image is very sharp! (except the tops of the pinion shafts, which are outside of the DOF)

Nice, this is what I was looking for!!! So, it is a thing that folks have tried... Have you tried on anything wider than the 55/3.5 John? Also, was the bellows factor figured based on multiples of the F-mount flange distance?

After the multiple posts about reversing the lens I was thinking for the safety of the lens it might be worth creating a lens board that the lens mounts to, but inside the bellows, so I could put a UV or something on the outside... but.. if 46.5mm is still my multiple for extension, that might not be feasible...

Great image by the way!

[Bernice Loui]

"Wider" would reduce the bellows/camera draw needed to achieve the image reproduction ratio needed. Lens focal length required for any given "macro/micro" image depends lots on magnification or image reproduction ratio needed to achieve the image goal.

Do some study/research on this as typical photographic image making conventions do not always apply to the macro/micro image making realities.


Bernice





Have you tried on anything wider than the 55/3.5 John? Also, was the bellows factor figured based on multiples of the F-mount flange distance?

[John Layton]

I did this (watch movement) image ages (like 45 years) ago…but as I remember, I first crafted a lens board (for a 4x5 Crown Graphic) out of tempered masonite, cut a hole in this and into this hole glued a 52mm filter ring - which allowed me to reverse mount the Micro Nikkor.

I then cut a hole in a Nikon rear lens cap, which allowed me to affix a shutter (from which the lens cells had been removed).

To create this image, I first filled a paper cup about 3/4 full with water, and then sprinkled a small amount of aluminum powder onto the water’s surface. I then, using tweezers and with extreme care…laid out the various watch movement pieces - allowing them to float upon the surface tension.

After doing the above, I very carefully moved the camera over the top of the paper cup, and, after side-lighting the subject with a simple desk lamp, carefully focussed the image prior to stopping the lens down…to F/16 if I remember correctly. After inserting a film holder, I then simply shut off the lamp, removed the dark slide, opened the shutter, and turned the lamp back on for the exposure…reasoning that using the light switch instead of the shutter to time the exposure’s duration would allow me to be completely isolated from the camera during the exposure, thus minimizing any risk of camera shake and/or movement of the water's surface.

As for how I measured the exposure…I believe I used my trusty Weston Master V, with the incident light “invercone” installed, to measure from a distance under the desk lamp equal to its distance from the subject, and then measured one of the watch movement parts on the ground glass and compared this to the actual size of the watch movement to acquire the reproduction ration - which allowed me to compute the exposure. Completely forget those figures now, but I do remember doing a range of exposures, with the most successful of these being in the vicinity of one minute.

At any rate…after all these years, I still have the aluminum powder, plus a number of long-dead watches to dissect - and now that I’ve written the above, I feel newly inspired to try this whole thing again! This time I’ll use a 100mm Componon-S, likely with 8x10 film, which I will then contact print. Then again, I could go with a 180 Componon-S with 11x14 film…which just might be spectacular! (or a total failure...but will be fun to try!)

[Dan Fromm]

Nice, this is what I was looking for!!! So, it is a thing that folks have tried... Have you tried on anything wider than the 55/3.5 John? Also, was the bellows factor figured based on multiples of the F-mount flange distance?

After the multiple posts about reversing the lens I was thinking for the safety of the lens it might be worth creating a lens board that the lens mounts to, but inside the bellows, so I could put a UV or something on the outside... but.. if 46.5mm is still my multiple for extension, that might not be feasible...

Great image by the way!
Sheesh! By a copy of Lefkowitz instead of guessing.

46.5 mm is the Nikon F mount flange-to-film distance, therefore is the minimum working distance for closeup photography. The magic number to use in calculating extension needed to get desired magnification, also adjustment of exposure for magnification, is the lens' focal length.

Get out of the 35 mm still mindset. You don't need to protect the lens when working closeup. No need to add mechanical complexity to be able to mount a UV filter.