Lenses for Scanning (film digitizing)

[silvergelatin]

Looking for a new lens for scanning 35mm film on a full frame Sony. Since I started using an RGB light source, my Sigma 105 Art lens sometimes shows color vignetting, and generally requires a lot of software correction, so I’m looking for something more optically compatible. I tried a 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor and a 60mm f4 Rodagon (non-WA). The latter was flatter, but neither is as snappy as the Sigma.

Ideally, I would grab an Apo Rodagon D or Apo Componon, but since those are unobtainium where I live, I’m looking for alternatives. Has anyone used the Voigtlander 65mm Apo Lanthar for scanning? I know it is reputed to be excellent in general, but scanning is a special set of constraints. I know it needs some extension to get to 1:1, but that’s no problem. How is the flatness? Any quirks? Other ideas?

 

[250swb]

With the 60mm Nikkor D you get 1+1 reproduction and also a great micro lens anyway. But an AF lens is best for speed of work.

 

[silvergelatin]

With the 60mm Nikkor D you get 1+1 reproduction and also a great micro lens anyway. But an AF lens is best for speed of work.

Another user has had RGB ray angle issues with that one, but i haven't tested it myself on a Sony sensor. Currently testing a Fujinon EX 105 (waiting on additional extension tubes), which I expect to do pretty well. But still chasing the elusive ideal for the moment...

 

[xkaes]

Since you are looking for around 1:1 reproduction, there are a ton of process/copy/macro lenses to choose from. A lot depends on if you want AF and NEW. I use manual focusing Minolta and Tominon bellows and process lenses on a Sony a900 -- usually a Tominon 75mm f4.5 for FF 35mm film. You'll get a lot more flexibility from a bellows than extension tubes, but that usually means losing AF and auto-aperture control. You'll get the best results from a lens designed for 1:1 reproduction, and stopping down. Enlarging lenses are not designed for 1:1 reproduction.

 

[MattKing]

Thread title tweaked, to head off those who might think this thread is about the lenses that are inside film scanners.
The argument about whether or not to use the term "scanning" to describe the process of creating a digital file using a camera with a single stationary sensor with a lens in front of it will no doubt continue for decades ....

 

[bfilm]

If you are looking for something like the Rodenstock lenses you mention, maybe you can get a better price in Japan on the Nikon Rayfact IL series industrial lenses, which are largely the same as the old EL-Nikkor 50mm F2.8N and 63mm F2.8N enlargement lenses.

https://www.nikon.com/business/industrial-lenses/lineup/il/

They don't have numbered aperture markings, but they do have marks and click stops, so you can count the aperture steps. You can use these on the darkroom enlarger in the same way.

 

[Ardpatrick]

Since you are looking for around 1:1 reproduction, there are a ton of process/copy/macro lenses to choose from. A lot depends on if you want AF and NEW. I use manual focusing Minolta and Tominon bellows and process lenses on a Sony a900 -- usually a Tominon 75mm f4.5 for FF 35mm film. You'll get a lot more flexibility from a bellows than extension tubes, but that usually means losing AF and auto-aperture control. You'll get the best results from a lens designed for 1:1 reproduction, and stopping down. Enlarging lenses are not designed for 1:1 reproduction.

I have tested a Micro-Nikkor 105 AF-D, a Micro-Nikkor 60AF-D, and a Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon N 80 reverse mounted, on a Nikon PB-4 bellows with the slide repro attachment, at 1:1 with a D800. The first issue I had was finding an old slide that was truly sharp enough to test any of these optics. After that I arrived at the ranking to confuse Xkaes knowledgeable advice. The 105 was sharpest, followed closely by the enlarger lens, and then a little way behind was the 60mm. But the 60mm is by far the easiest to use in this bellows set-up and more than adequate for my soft old slides.

I guess my point is that comparing optics based on specifications, or reputation assumes ideal conditions in a task that brutally exposes any failing of focus, alignment, stability, illumination, flare control etc. Get all that just perfect and the search for the best optics can begin to really matter. Even at that there’s the variation in individual lenses from copy to copy, and the fact that most of the lenses discussed on these forums for film capture are used, often decades old. The number of variables involved leads me to the conclusion that one cannot truly hypothesise, but rather one has to directly test lenses against each other on the specific set up in use.

 

[xkaes]

Ease of use is always a consideration, and when digitizing film there's always the advantage of "post-processing improvements" through software to sharpen up the "soft old slides".