I use a 240mm f5,6 Apo Symmar on my 8x10 inches camera for landscapes and close up works, and would like to know if it is worth to purchase a specific lens only for close up works. is the difference huge in quality?

What is the difference in sharpness between the 240mm f9 Fuji A and a Schneider G Claron 270mm f9, or an Apo Ronar, or the Apo-Macro Sironar f5,6 from Rodenstock?

the works i need to do are between 1:5 and 2:1 scale.

Thanks.

Alec Jeser

-- alec jeser (alecjeser@hotmail.com), October 31, 2001

Answers

Unless you have a huge amount of bellows extension (~720 mm), you'll need a shorter lens than 240mm for a 2:1 ratio. I'd recommend you get yourself a 150mm process lens like a G-Claron or Gerogon, or you can use a good 150mm enlarging lens. That's if you can get away without using a shutter.
Another advantage of process lenses is that they generally stop down to smaller apertures than normal lenses.
A 150mm G-Claron or Apo-Gerogon will cover 10x8 at 1:2 and higher magnifications.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), October 31, 2001.

If you already have Schneider Componon S 135, or 150, they will go right into a Copal 0 for what you want to do. Schneider is the only enlarging lens I've found that allows that.

-- Jim Galli (jimgalli@lnett.com), October 31, 2001.

Actually, any enlarging lens would make a high quality macro optic. If it does not go into a Copal 1 shutter, you can order an adapter ring made by Schneider/Rodenstock that allows you to do that. Cheers, DJ

-- N Dhananjay (dhananjay-nayakankuppam@uiowa.edu), October 31, 2001.

It has been a few years now, but Adolf Gasser in San Francisco had a set of test chromes shot by a client on 8x10 wiht the Macro Sironar and the Apo Sironar. In critical comparisons around 1:1, the Macro Sironar was definately sharper, separating facets in cut diamonds better than the Apo Soronar. (same focal length, shoot at similar f/stops, same studio, same lighting, same camera, same film, same lab) The Apo Sironar was plenty good for most use & held up well until one looked at the chromes from the macro sironar. There was a discernable difference. The client, who regularly shot 1:3 to 3:1 images went with the macro lens as a result of the testing & is still using the lens now, a number of years later. It seems if you have only occasional need for the macro capability the Apo Sironar would most likely be adequate. But if you are going to do a lot of work near lifesize go with the lens designed specifically for the job.

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), October 31, 2001.

Nikkor AM-ED 210mm F5.6 Macro is another option. Image Circle 310mm at f5.6 and 400mm(10x12) at f22. Both at 1:1. (Source: Nikkor Cataloge 2000.2.20)

-- Masayoshi Hayashi (mhayashi@td5.so-net.ne.jp), November 01, 2001.

Schneider makes 3 macro lenses, an 80mm, a 120mm and the 180mm. See http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/large_format_lenses/macro- symmar/ for more info. I have the 180mm but haven't done comparisons like previous posters mentioned above.

-- Roger (roger_urban@yahoo.com), January 29, 2002.