Lenses for Scanning (film digitizing)

[isaac7]

I had always heard that the Pentax macros did a good job. The m42 mounts are pretty cheap. I would imagine the bellows only models would be even cheaper.

 

[originalwinslow]

I think that is largely an artifact of NLP. The saturation is not unnatural - it is just being interpreted in that NLP philosophy.

Yes I'm sure that it's an issue with NLP interpreting the signal from the RGB light. Supposedly they are integrating enhanced support for different light sources. Glad to hear you are getting better results from C1. Would you be able to share a comparison? I also heard the smart convert software gave a more natural look with the RGB.

 

[silvergelatin]

Yes I'm sure that it's an issue with NLP interpreting the signal from the RGB light. Supposedly they are integrating enhanced support for different light sources. Glad to hear you are getting better results from C1. Would you be able to share a comparison? I also heard the smart convert software gave a more natural look with the RGB.

I don't have anything prepared as a comparison - it's just my conclusion after using both across many rolls. C1 really shines with the RGB light - you can get the same results as you could wth a good manual conversion in PS, but way more efficiently and in batches. It takes me more time to re-convert old white light scans, but the RGB scans really snap into place pretty easily. They have a free trial, so if you decide to give it a shot, watch the recent livestream recording on Youtube where they go over the new negative conversion mode. Also, a critical trick for batch neg conversion is to set a "border buffer" shortcut like NLP has. In C1, you can save a crop as a style and assign it to a keyboard shortcut. You then uncrop after conversion by hitting the shortcut again. The other not-secret weapon is the Pick Neutralize dropper in Curves. Works like the midtone dropper in PS, but feels more accurate. If you never move your camera or change aperture, you can also save your flat field correction (LCC) as a style and apply it automatically.

So yeah, I like Capture One. I have only been using it a few weeks now, but I don't think I would go back to Adobe as a main scanning environment. I have old LR/PS pricing locked in, so I will still renew my subscription so I can keep the option open. Plus I have a lot of old converted rolls in LR that I don't feel like redoing just yet, so I still will refer back to it sometimes. The only downside of C1 is the rather high price.

 

[BobDavid]

I had read about the 110, and it didn’t fare well: https://www.closeuphotography.com/1x-test-2020

I also tried the 65 and took it right back. maybe it is good at 1:2, but with an extension tube it was quite poor for film. I currently own the Sigma 70, 105 Fujinon EX, 60 Rodagon, and 55/2.8 Nikkor. The Rodagon and Nikkor are the best so far. The Fujinon is not good for this. The Sigma 70 is overrated, in my opinion. The field is not flat at all, at least with my copy. The old lenses beat it easily. I think my next step would have to be an Apo-Rodagon D 75mm, if I can find one.

I saw O'Toole's comments about the Voigtlander 110 f/2.5 Apo Lanthar. That is the first negative report I've read about that particular lens. Here's a quick Chat GTP summary: "The Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 APO-Lanthar is an outstanding, premium manual-focus macro lens for Sony E-mount, widely praised for its exceptional sharpness, apochromatic (APO) correction, and beautiful bokeh. It offers 1:1 magnification and produces excellent image quality with essentially zero chromatic aberration." If you google reviews on the lens, you'll see that it is highly regarded. I have used premium Rodagons, Componons, Nikkors, and many others. The Voigtlander is the best. I routinely use one on a Sony A7r IV for copying 35mm slides and negatives. It easily out resolves whatever I put in front of it in combo with the Sony.

 

[silvergelatin]

I saw O'Toole's comments about the Voigtlander 110 f/2.5 Apo Lanthar. That is the first negative report I've read about that particular lens. Here's a quick Chat GTP summary: "The Voigtlander 110mm f/2.5 APO-Lanthar is an outstanding, premium manual-focus macro lens for Sony E-mount, widely praised for its exceptional sharpness, apochromatic (APO) correction, and beautiful bokeh. It offers 1:1 magnification and produces excellent image quality with essentially zero chromatic aberration." If you google reviews on the lens, you'll see that it is highly regarded. I have used premium Rodagons, Componons, Nikkors, and many others. The Voigtlander is the best. I routinely use one on a Sony A7r IV for copying 35mm slides and negatives. It easily out resolves whatever I put in front of it in combo with the Sony.

I'll look into to it some more. There are a lot of great macro lenses out there that reveal aberrations when forced to do flat copy work at 1:1, which is why a good lens for this purpose is usually one that designed with that in mind (like the old 55 Micro Nikkor).

 

[BobDavid]

I'll look into to it some more. There are a lot of great macro lenses out there that reveal aberrations when forced to do flat copy work at 1:1, which is why a good lens for this purpose is usually one that designed with that in mind (like the old 55 Micro Nikkor).

The Voigtlander 65 and 110 are both flat field lenses. The old 55 Micro Nikkors are not in the same league. They were workhorses in the 1970s, 80s, 90s and a bit beyond. I assure you the Voigtlanders are in a different league. I earned a living doing high-end repro work for decades...

 

[silvergelatin]

The Voigtlander 65 and 110 are both flat field lenses. The old 55 Micro Nikkors are not in the same league. They were workhorses in the 1970s, 80s, 90s and a bit beyond. I assure you the Voigtlanders are in a different league. I earned a living doing high-end repro work for decades...

The 65 I had definitely fell apart at 1:1. It wasn't just weak corners, but even the center was not as clear as the Nikkor. It is probably much better without extension tubes at 1:2, or maybe I just had a bad one. Do you have any links to tests of the 110 that show its performance for flat copy work at 1:1?

 

[BobDavid]

The 65 I had definitely fell apart at 1:1. It wasn't just weak corners, but even the center was not as clear as the Nikkor. It is probably much better without extension tubes at 1:2, or maybe I just had a bad one. DO you have any links to tests of the 110 that show its performance for flat copy work at

 

[BobDavid]

You can find MTF charts if you scour the web. I recommend going to the B&H website to see the reviews on the lens. ... I haven't found any Sony E-mount extension tubes with electronic contacts that I would use for precision flat-field copy work.

 

[silvergelatin]

You can find MTF charts if you scour the web. I recommend going to the B&H website to see the reviews on the lens. ... I haven't found any Sony E-mount extension tubes with electronic contacts that I would use for precision flat-field copy work.

I took a look around and could not find anything that specifically discussed flat field performance at 1:1. I would count this one out due to price and size anyway. For the same money I can buy a process lens that will likely beat anything I've been looking into so far. There is a 65 Macro Nikkor process lens locally, but the price is kinda crazy. Still thinking about it, though.

 

[BobDavid]

Well, good luck. ... Are you using a rigid copystand that you can precisely adjust pitch and roll to align perfectly with the stage holding the negative/slide? That is really a crucial aspect of 1:1 accuracy.

 

[silvergelatin]

Well, good luck. ... Are you using a rigid copystand that you can precisely adjust pitch and roll to align perfectly with the stage holding the negative/slide? That is really a crucial aspect of 1:1 accuracy.

Yes, but I am dismantling all of that to try leveling the film plane instead. I bought some simple leveling feet and mounting plates that I stuck under my light box. We will see how it goes. I had a Leofoto GR-3 and G2 mounted, and there was just too much drift and play.

 

[BobDavid]

Here's my recommendation for setting up an excellent rig. You can probably find the items listed below on the used market. As for a light source, mine is a diffused 6" round 5500K LED. The negative carriers/slide holders sit on a DIY stage that is a few inches above the light source (this eliminates problems with dust and dirt on the light source).

1. Copy stand: Kaiser 205411 Copy Stand RS 2-XA

2. Gear head: https://www.manfrotto.com/global-en/xpro-geared-three-way-pan-tilt-tripod-head-mhxpro-3wg/

3. Lens: Voigtlander 110 f/2.5 Apo Lanthar

 

[silvergelatin]

Here's my recommendation for setting up an excellent rig. You can probably find the items listed below on the used market. As for a light source, mine is a diffused 6" round 5500K LED. The negative carriers/slide holders sit on a DIY stage that is a few inches above the light source (this eliminates problems with dust and dirt on the light source).

1. Copy stand: Kaiser 205411 Copy Stand RS 2-XA

2. Gear head: https://www.manfrotto.com/global-en/xpro-geared-three-way-pan-tilt-tripod-head-mhxpro-3wg/

3. Lens: Voigtlander 110 f/2.5 Apo Lanthar

I've got the simple LPL A4 stand, which is reasonably stable. I thought about the Manfrotto heads (Xpro and 410), but they add a lot of forward extension, so I wasn't sure it would remain solid. In retrospect, that probably still would have been better than the Leofoto. I am going to keep the smaller Leofoto GR-3 panning head attached so I can use the anti-rotation lip on the QR plate. That is more secure than screwing directly to the LPL carrier. Other than that I will adjust the lightbox and Neg Supply carrier with three leveling feet. I even bought a front surface mirror for alignment checks.

Until I can find a suitable copy/process lens like the Apo-Rodagon, I will stick to the Micro Nikkor and maybe continue testing against the Rodenstock 60. I will give the Sigma another chance as well, but I was disappointed in corner perfomance on test targets. On real life negs, the difference is less noticeable.