Cheap but high performance macro lenses

ForenSeil · Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.

Rodagon 105/5.6 (latest M39)
Can be had for less than 30€, reaches up to 1:1,5 with normal bellows and it shows very decent IQ (best IQ of all enlarger lenses I tried so far). Almost as good as Apo-Rodagon-R/D 75/4 @ 1:1,5 - at F8 it's hard to say which one is better - below that the Apo-Dupe lens is better.
It's rated to work best at 1:2-15:1 @F8 by Rodenstock

I don't know how big the difference to your Componon though - I never tried the Componon

Apo-Rodagon-R 75/4 and Apo-Rodagon-D 75/4 are top between 2:1-1:2 magn. but not easy to find very cheap (120-220€)
(R=Repro, D=Duplication - but lenses are optically identical as far as I know, R version is the older one)

Another idea:
Novoflex Macro-Noflexar 1:4/60 and Staeble Katagon 1:4/60 can be had for 60-100€ - they are symmetrical macro/duplication lenses and so should be useful for around 1:1
IQ is decent and they work for even higher magnifications than 1:1 but I don't know if they are any better than the 105/5.6 Rodagon at 1:2-1:15

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Thanks for the info.

I had a root to see what other enlarger lenses I have and I found these:

Ross Resolux 90mm
Rodenstock Rogonar-S 4.5/90
Industar-110U 110mm
Wray Supar 4.5/4.25inch
Schneider Componon 5.6/80

I doubt any of those is better than the Componon-S 5.6/100, apart from the Componon 5.6/80 they are all four element types. At least, I think the Resolux is 4 elements, Ross also made the Rosstar.

Looking at this comparison of several enlarger lenses including Componon, Componon-S and Resolux to a modern Mamiya macro lens, looks like they are all roughly equal in sharpness, which suggests I should just stick with what I have I think:

http://www.photocornucopia.com/1038.html

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

danfromm · Joined: 04 Sep 2011 Posts: 585

Opinions about the PB-4 vary considerably.

I've had mine since 1970. It is a good bellows and that it is in effect a bellows on top of a focusing rail adds to its usefulness.

It has limitations. No lens in a focusing F mount can be used on it at infinity. The instructions, which I still have, say that its minimum extension is 43 mm. Add the Nikon F register (46.5 mm) and adapters' thickness etc. and the shortest lens that will focus to infinity on is can't be much shorter than 100 mm.

It has limitations. Mounted normally, right side up, it has 10 mm shift in each direction (right and left) and has 25 degrees of swing in either direction. Mounted on its side, it has 10 mm each rise and fall and 25 degrees of tilt in both directions.

Lenses for 35 mm still have to cover 43 mm at infinity, most just manage that. If the PB-4's movements are to be used to best advantage, lenses for larger formats have to be used with it. I wouldn't try to use my PB-4's movements, getting it instead of a less expensive apparently less capable Nikon bellows was a mistake. Another instance of too soon old, too late smart.

There are a few bellows for 35 mm cameras that are really tiny view cameras with L-shaped standards. I've handled one, wouldn't use it either.

If you want to shoot 35 mm with a real view camera, accumulate your small monetary units (and many of them) until you can afford a Kennedy Monobar. Or buy a proper 4x5 camera -- in alphabetical order, Cambo SC and Sinar F are fairly common and not too expensive -- and get an adapter to hang the 35 mm SLR or other small format camera of your choice behind it.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Thanks for relating those experiences Dan, that's all good to know.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

I might have missed it, and if so, well, sorry for the repetition.

Chances are, you probably already have a great lens for macro work, which means it's cheaper than cheap. It's free. Well, almost. You will need to buy a reversing adapter for your camera.

Yeah -- any decent wide-angle lens, when reversed, provides a significant level of image enlargement. Somewhere between 3x and 4x for a 35mm focal length, as I dimly recall. And reversing the lens improves its field curvature, I read. A reversing ring adapter will cost you somewhere between $10 and $20, I reckon.

I almost hesitate to mention it, but there is also the close-up filter sets, the better ones of which do a halfway decent job.

Pontus · Expire: 2016-08-25

Nikon T4 and Nikon T5, Canon 500D, Raynox M150 are all good diopters which can produce stunning macros. An often overlooked and easy way to get near things.

eno789 · Joined: 27 Aug 2010 Posts: 159 Location: California

I actually quite like close-up lenses. Raynox DCR-150, DCR-250, Canon 500D, Canon 250D, Nikon 3T, 4T, 5T, 6T are all excellent. Google for "Currently Available Acromatic Close-Up", there're more. The advantage is, you can turn any tele prime or zoom into macro; the disadvantage is field curvature.

plasticmotif · Joined: 17 Feb 2010 Posts: 55 Location: Tennessee

My two favorites are Sigma 50 2.8 Macro

Low'ish in contrast but easily bumped!

and the not so manual, Canon Compact Macro 50

nickfuji · Joined: 04 Dec 2012 Posts: 19

I have a mamyia 60 macro not cheap but a very good lens, i sold it only Because i need other lens.

hifisapi · Joined: 25 Sep 2012 Posts: 941 Location: USA

the sharpest lens I ever used in a macro application was a el-nikkor 135mm f5.6 multicoated lens mounted on a bellows. wow it was incredible, sorry I don't have it any more or any sample pix.

Stdon · Joined: 13 Feb 2013 Posts: 6 Location: Oregon

Newbie to this forum. I have a Kiron 105 f1:2.8 1:1 macro Nikon F mount. In the day a lot of dentists used these. Got it for about nothing. Excellent all rounder.

Neither 1:1 but you can get the idea. The iris is on a D700 and the Hummer is on a D7000

Lloydy · Expire: 2022-01-01

Pontus · Expire: 2016-08-25

Not cheap but maybe something to consider. There's a Contax S-Planar 60/2.8 on Italian eBay for 350 euro. Now there's a sharp and contrasty lens for you. It goes to 1:1 which the smaller C-Planar doesn't. The lens was used for the semiconductor industry and is legendary. Ninja star bokeh though, which some love and others hate. Could be worth it if you haven't invested in any other macro lenses yet.

calvin83 · Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7555 Location: Hong Kong

DR.JUAN · Joined: 08 Feb 2013 Posts: 661

Cheap and good?

For me, the mc rokkor 3,5/50.

6 elements, well corrected. Nice colors and good contrast.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Okay since we're talking macro lenses here, here's a couple that are often quite cheap now because of their mount, and they are both tack-sharp optics: the Canon FD 50mm f/3.5 Macro and the Canon FD 100mm f/4 Macro. Even if you're an EOS user it doesn't matter because we're talking macro here. Just use the EOS-FD adapter and remove the glass element, which turns it into a very short extension tube. Both the 50mm and the 100mm require an extension tube to get down to a 1:1 reproduction ratio -- or bellows. The biggest problem with the 50mm is the subject distance from the front of the lens, which at high magnifications can be a fraction of an inch. And this is precisely where the 100mm provides more maneuvering room. True, the 100mm is always more expensive than the 50mm, but because of the mount, it can still often be found for great prices. But you will have to shop around. For example, I recently found in an "old lens" bin at a local camera shop, both a 50mm macro and a 100mm macro with tubes. I picked up the 50 for $25 and the 100 for $40. Now, these prices are obviously on the cheap side, especially for the 100, but they're out there. You just gotta look for them. Even on eBay if you go for the auctions instead of the Buy-It-Now listings, you can often save a boatload of money.

The Canon 50 Macro is probably not the best choice for portrait work, unless your model likes to be able to count the pores in her facial skin.

Canon F-1, FD 50mm f/3.5 Macro, Kodachrome 64, exposure unrecorded. All three images taken during the mid-1980s. Scanned using a slide-duplicator outfit with a DSLR.

Billou · Expire: 2015-05-19

I second that, the FD 50/3.5 macro is just great. It always gives me great pictures, and the colors and contrast it produces are fantastic.

We can also add the Vivitar 50/2.8 Macro wich gives the 1:1 ratio, it can be found at a good price because not a lot of people are aware of the quality of this lens, and thinks the "Vivitar" name on it doesn't have so much value. I saw a few ones going for less than 50 euros.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Hey Billou, do you happen to know the first two digits of the Vivitar 50 Macro's serial number?

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974

The first two digits are 28, it's Komine's lens and it's 2.8/55, not 2.8/50. I have a couple of them.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Trying out this new site, whose link Attila just provided:

http://allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_951.html

Lots of useful info on your Vivitar 55mm f/2.8. Impressive site.

ForenSeil · Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.

Cosina (Vivitar, Voigtländer,....) 100mm F3.5 has a plastic body and is AF but it's comparably cheap and almost as good as Tamron 90/2.8 Macro

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974

Cosina 100mm f3.5 also comes in MF configuration and it's indeed a superb lens (it's not for nothing that I have 3 of them Laughing

). For use on mirrorless IMHO it's superior to Tamron.

ZoneV · Expire: 2011-12-02

I love the Canon nFD 100mm f/4, but the Minolta 100/4 seems to be as good at my first tests.
The Sigma 90mm/2.8 in M42 mount I use for documentation - don´t love the lens finish, but image quality is good.

I have a lot more lenses (enlarger, microfilm, industry lenses) but not tested all.