Sigma or Panasonic macro lens for scanning film

pkr1979 · Jun 25, 2025

Hi all,

I am considering scanning with a Panasonic S1R instead of a film scanner. And there seems to be two solid lens options. The Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art and the Panasonic Lumix S 100mm f/2.8 Macro. Things like weather sealing, auto focus speed and size/weight are not important at all. But the image I get from the lens without the use of lens correction profiles is (software I use are not able to apply lens profiles). With that in mind - does anyone have any experience or opinions on which of these two lenses are best suited for 'scanning' film? I might also want to stitch larger negatives.

Cheers
Peter

koraks · Jun 25, 2025

pkr1979 said:
(software I use are not able to apply lens profiles)

Doesn't RawTherapee do this? It's open source/free.

pkr1979 · Jun 25, 2025

koraks said:
Doesn't RawTherapee do this? It's open source/free.

Possibly. But I am not using that. I could switch, but prefer not to (not the best for inverting negatives) so my question remains

koraks · Jun 25, 2025

OK, but with all due respect, I think it only makes sense to include software into the consideration here. Some things in the digital domain you can solve either through software and hardware and the best option often is only available if you are willing to optimize across both domains.
Also, I wonder whether it's necessary at all to use the same software tool for negative inversion and digital capture processing. I use RawTherapee for the latter and GIMP for the former. There are strengths and weaknesses to any option; I'd consider playing on their strengths.

250swb · Jun 25, 2025

If we assume the native lenses for the Panasonic S1R have the necessary corrections in their firmware wouldn't a Sigma with the Panasonic mount also? Meaning the lens corrections are already done in-camera. It is a problem of the digital age that we have lenses that need firmware but my guess is 99% of people wouldn't expect to look for lens correction in third party software to make it work? For example I use a Nikon 105mm S lens with my Nikon Z7 and the lens corrections are embed in the RAW file that I open in Adobe Camera Raw, Camera Raw does not apply an additional or replacement profile so why would RawTherapee need a separate loadable profile?

pkr1979 · Jun 25, 2025

koraks said:
OK, but with all due respect, I think it only makes sense to include software into the consideration here. Some things in the digital domain you can solve either through software and hardware and the best option often is only available if you are willing to optimize across both domains.
Also, I wonder whether it's necessary at all to use the same software tool for negative inversion and digital capture processing. I use RawTherapee for the latter and GIMP for the former. There are strengths and weaknesses to any option; I'd consider playing on their strengths.

I agree. Unless I can get away with. But this means that I would first have to invert the negative (FilmLabApp), then apply the lens profiles in RawTerapee, and then use PhotoLine for the remaining. And Im not sure how well this would work if stitching is done too.

250swb said:
If we assume the native lenses for the Panasonic S1R have the necessary corrections in their firmware wouldn't a Sigma with the Panasonic mount also? Meaning the lens corrections are already done in-camera. It is a problem of the digital age that we have lenses that need firmware but my guess is 99% of people wouldn't expect to look for lens correction in third party software to make it work? For example I use a Nikon 105mm S lens with my Nikon Z7 and the lens corrections are embed in the RAW file that I open in Adobe Camera Raw, Camera Raw does not apply an additional or replacement profile so why would RawTherapee need a separate loadable profile?

The corrections done in the camera isnt delivered as a corrected RAW-file. Its part of the EXIF so the software needs to understand it.

The 'best' lens does make everything afterwards easier for me.

koraks · Jun 25, 2025

pkr1979 said:
But this means that I would first have to invert the negative (FilmLabApp), then apply the lens profiles in RawTerapee, and then use PhotoLine for the remaining.

The order should be different:
1: first apply the lens profile to fix any possible problems with distortion etc.
2: stitch the image together
3: invert and color balance

Everyone has their own preferences; my route of choice would be to do #1 in RawTherapee, output to TIFF and then do #2 + #3 in GIMP. I personally do not use dedicated negative inversion/color balancing software, but this could of course be handled in a separate tool if so desired.

pkr1979 · Jun 25, 2025

koraks said:
The order should be different:
1: first apply the lens profile to fix any possible problems with distortion etc.
2: stitch the image together
3: invert and color balance

Everyone has their own preferences; my route of choice would be to do #1 in RawTherapee, output to TIFF and then do #2 + #3 in GIMP. I personally do not use dedicated negative inversion/color balancing software, but this could of course be handled in a separate tool if so desired.

Shouldnt lens profiling be done after the negative has been inverted. If not - wouldnt fall off be wrong?

koraks · Jun 25, 2025

You need to correct any issues with the lens you used for photographing the film negative before you do anything to the negative as such.

brbo · Jun 25, 2025

koraks said:
You need to correct any issues with the lens you used for photographing the film negative before you do anything to the negative as such.

Have you verified that?

I wonder how much better does laCA correction work on a shot of an uninverted vs inverted negative. I'm pretty sure that loCA correction will be spectacularly inefficient in uninverted shots (luckily it's not needed in a properly focused negative capture). Geometry is trivial to get correct whether you do it before or after. Light falloff correction will indeed be easier to correct before inversion if you work in a destructive mode (which you really shouldn't be, but I can see how many would still not know of the obvious benefits of non-destructive image manipulation).

It's a moot point anyway, since most of the lens correction will only work on RAW files.

koraks · Jun 25, 2025

brbo said:
Have you verified that?

To be clear, I'm talking about the following:
1: Original photo is capture onto film with 'analog lens'
2: Processed negative is captured digitally, perhaps in segments, with 'digital lens'
3: Lens corrections are performed on digital capture(s) to correct imperfections of 'digital lens'
4: Analog image is stitched, inverted & color balanced
5: optionally, at this stage corrections could be done to correct for imperfections of 'analog lens'

What I referred to was step 3, so the corrections of 'digital lens'. And yes, I feel these by definition need to precede any work that happens on the negative. Especially problems with barrel/pincushion/mustache distortion as well as vignetting correction will avoid problems in particular on a segmented digitization that needs to be stitched back together. If the 'digital lens' suffers from issues like laCA that manifest in a negative digitization (I expect this to be minimal for a variety of reasons), it would also work best to correct those at this stage and before any digital files are processed further and perhaps stitched together.

For me this is kind of evident on a 'Russian doll' principle or something analogous to the V-model. Not a literal relation, but a conceptual one, mind you, if that make sense (if it doesn't, forget about these analogies).

I was not talking about step 5, which could also be done for the 'analog lens', but I assumed the thread to focus and be limited in scope to the digitization part and how to best manage that.

brbo said:
It's a moot point anyway, since most of the lens correction will only work on RAW files.

yes, you'd do these corrections on RAW files, that's what I meant. I hope the above clarifies it.

Apologies to @pkr1979 for any digression of the actual question you asked!

pkr1979 · Jun 25, 2025

koraks said:
To be clear, I'm talking about the following:
1: Original photo is capture onto film with 'analog lens'
2: Processed negative is captured digitally, perhaps in segments, with 'digital lens'
3: Lens corrections are performed on digital capture(s) to correct imperfections of 'digital lens'
4: Analog image is stitched, inverted & color balanced
5: optionally, at this stage corrections could be done to correct for imperfections of 'analog lens'

What I referred to was step 3, so the corrections of 'digital lens'. And yes, I feel these by definition need to precede any work that happens on the negative. Especially problems with barrel/pincushion/mustache distortion as well as vignetting correction will avoid problems in particular on a segmented digitization that needs to be stitched back together. If the 'digital lens' suffers from issues like laCA that manifest in a negative digitization (I expect this to be minimal for a variety of reasons), it would also work best to correct those at this stage and before any digital files are processed further and perhaps stitched together.

For me this is kind of evident on a 'Russian doll' principle or something analogous to the V-model. Not a literal relation, but a conceptual one, mind you, if that make sense (if it doesn't, forget about these analogies).

I was not talking about step 5, which could also be done for the 'analog lens', but I assumed the thread to focus and be limited in scope to the digitization part and how to best manage that.

yes, you'd do these corrections on RAW files, that's what I meant. I hope the above clarifies it.

Apologies to @pkr1979 for any digression of the actual question you asked!

No problem

brbo · Jun 25, 2025

koraks said:
To be clear, I'm talking about the following:

And to be clear I was talking about the stated "fact" that you need to get rid of any digital lens aberrations as the first step. Your point about stitching is valid of course, but stitching is not always involved in "camera scanning".

What I was curious about was whether you had any first hand experience on how well the more advanced lens corrections (those dealing with colour aberrations) work directly on the uninverted raw files. I can easily imagine that laCA correction will rely (at least to some degree) on the image analysis which could be thrown off by the "shifted" RGB channels of the negative and "compressed" nature of the individual channels of the negative.

250swb · Jun 26, 2025

pkr1979 said:
The corrections done in the camera isnt delivered as a corrected RAW-file. Its part of the EXIF so the software needs to understand it.

The 'best' lens does make everything afterwards easier for me.

If RawTherapee can't apply the corrections automatically like ACR have you tried the LensFun database for a profile for your potential lens. I believe both the Sigma and Panasonic lenses have profiles on the database which you can then apply in RawTherapee.

pkr1979 · Jun 26, 2025

I think RawTherapee can. I havent used it (yet). AI told me to go for the Sigma (at least when not using lens profiles).

_T_ · Jun 26, 2025

I would not make a technical decision involving money based on the advice of ai. It’s just guessing at what it thinks you want to hear. It cannot and does not actually do any technical analysis before spitting out its advice.

You have to do the research yourself and look at actual data produced in valid testing setups with comparable results if you want to make an informed decision. Otherwise you’re buying blind. This is an essential basic skill that photographers must develop in order to improve at their craft.

250swb · Jun 27, 2025

_T_ said:
I would not make a technical decision involving money based on the advice of ai. It’s just guessing at what it thinks you want to hear. It cannot and does not actually do any technical analysis before spitting out its advice.

You have to do the research yourself and look at actual data produced in valid testing setups with comparable results if you want to make an informed decision. Otherwise you’re buying blind. This is an essential basic skill that photographers must develop in order to improve at their craft.

I wouldn't take Ai's advice to make a final purchase decision myself, but if you've typed in an unbiased question it does aggregate discussions and reviews. It's the new version of Ken Rockwell, who even though scorned by many photographers who take themselves very seriously the opinions he gives can be good jumping off points for further research. Research in this case being not to confirm your own bias but also look at the views of people you might not agree with. But nobody makes a 'bad' mainstream lens anymore and pouring over graphs isn't a basic skill but a basic waste of time especially for telephoto lenses which have always been very difficult to get wrong. So for the OP's 105 or 100mm macro lens the price and the name are the deciding factors, and unless you buy both you won't know anyway which may be a gnats bollock better for your own use.

koraks · Jun 27, 2025

250swb said:
if you've typed in an unbiased question it does aggregate discussions and reviews.

The question is how well it does so. IME it depends; sometimes it does a fairly good job, sometimes it 'overlooks' crucial points. It also depends a heck of a lot on how much prior data is available on the question asked, and the fuzziness with which seemingly related, but different instances are going to be included. E.g. when asking about the "Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art and the Panasonic Lumix S 100mm f/2.8 Macro", there's a good chance that data associated with other Sigma Art lenses, other brands of 105mm lenses, Panasonic Lumix cameras (instead of lenses) etc. etc. will be included in the linguistic mix. Since AI cannot differentiate between such things, as long as the letters are sufficiently similar, it'll all treat it as part of the same complex. In comparisons like this one, this can become a major problem.

If AI is to be used in a case like this, I'd always try to use a tool that at least allows for checking its references. Something like Perplexity for instance: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/out-of-these-two-which-is-the-n1htxzc.TRm7YgWSg_tZDQ While that does allow for tracking the sources used, note that the answer (as is typical for LLM's) is for the most part tangentially related to the actual question at best, and consists to a large extent of irrelevant filler.

dokko · Jun 27, 2025

if you want answer to technical questions, you must use the thinking models with web search capabilities to get meaningful results.
my favorite one is chatGPT o3 - it's not included in the free plan, but much much better in those tasks, so well worth it the 20euros per month to me.
for important questions, I even start a deep research, which takes 10-15mins to complete.

Gemini also has a very good model, 2.5 Pro, which is included in the free plan. so if I wouldn't want to to spend money on this would be my preferred choice at the moment. I find it a bit less thorough than o3 though at the moment, but much better than the free chatGTP model (4o).

for those interested, here the o3 answer of the exact question above after 1:30min of thinking:

ChatGPT - Sigma vs Panasonic Macro

A conversational AI system that listens, learns, and challenges

chatgpt.com

and here the gemini 2.5 pro answer (after about 10 seconds of thinking):

‎Gemini - Lens Choice for Film Scanning

Created with Gemini

g.co

feel welcome to compare to the answers of your favorite AI LLM.

_T_ · Jun 27, 2025

Apparently you shouldn’t be asking on forums either as most people on them have stopped doing their thinking for themselves.

runswithsizzers · Jun 27, 2025

dokko said:
if you want answer to technical questions, you must use the thinking models with web search capabilities to get meaningful results.
my favorite one is chatGPT o3 - it's not included in the free plan, but much much better in those tasks, so well worth it the 20euros per month to me.
for important questions, I even start a deep research, which takes 10-15mins to complete.

Gemini also has a very good model, 2.5 Pro, which is included in the free plan. so if I wouldn't want to to spend money on this would be my preferred choice at the moment. I find it a bit less thorough than o3 though at the moment, but much better than the free chatGTP model (4o).

for those interested, here the o3 answer of the exact question above after 1:30min of thinking:

ChatGPT - Sigma vs Panasonic Macro

A conversational AI system that listens, learns, and challenges

chatgpt.com

and here the gemini 2.5 pro answer (after about 10 seconds of thinking):

‎Gemini - Lens Choice for Film Scanning

Created with Gemini

g.co

feel welcome to compare to the answers of your favorite AI LLM.

I do like the way Chat GPT provides links to sources.

But, if I understand correctly, the two different AI have come to opposite conclusions, right? ChatGPT recommends the Sigma lens because, without software correction, it has less distortion. And Gemini is recommending the Panasonic lens because without software correction, it has less distortion.

Photrio has long been my go to place for conflicting opinions and endless arguments about trivial details, and it doesn't look like AI is going to change that.

"Oh yeah? My robot can beat up your robot!"

;-)

pkr1979 · Jun 27, 2025

I asked several (if that matters:

I am considering scanning film with a Panasonic S1R instead of a film scanner. And there seems to be two solid lens options. The Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art and the Panasonic Lumix S 100mm f/2.8 Macro. Things like weather sealing, auto focus speed and size/weight are not important at all. But the image I get from the lens without the use of lens correction profiles is (software I use are not able to apply lens profiles). With that in mind - which of these two lenses are best suited for 'scanning' film? I might also want to stitch larger negatives.

Reply:

Which is Better for Film Scanning?

The Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro Art is the better choice for your needs because:
✔ Superior optical performance without corrections – Minimal distortion, vignetting, and CA.
✔ Flatter field & sharper corners – Important for edge-to-edge consistency when digitizing film.
✔ More neutral color rendering – Helps maintain accurate film colors.
✔ Slightly longer working distance – Useful for lighting setups.

The Panasonic 100mm Macro is a great lens but relies more on software corrections (which you won’t be using). It has slightly more distortion and softer corners, which could affect stitching large negatives.

If I am not mistaken it also has better resolving capabilities.

pkr1979 · Jun 27, 2025

runswithsizzers said:
I do like the way Chat GPT provides links to sources.

But, if I understand correctly, the two different AI have come to opposite conclusions, right? ChatGPT recommends the Sigma lens because, without software correction, it has less distortion. And Gemini is recommending the Panasonic lens because without software correction, it has less distortion.

Photrio has long been my go to place for conflicting opinions and endless arguments about trivial details, and it doesn't look like AI is going to change that.

"Oh yeah? My robot can beat up your robot!"

;-)

Indeed. But surely it has to be possible to arrive to a conclusion? Wouldn't it be possible to 'fact check' those claims - I assume they cant be both right? Mine was from DeepSeek.

pkr1979 · Jun 27, 2025

I think there might be a mistake in the Gemini response. It says that pincushion is only -0.04, but according to ChatGPT this is AFTER a lens profile is applied: "Visible pincushion; AP calls it “needs software correction”, even in RAW; measured –0.04 % barrel at ePhotozine but that figure is after embedded profile is applied, not purely optical"

So maybe we dont know what this number is optically for the Panasonic?

_T_ · Jun 27, 2025

pkr1979 said:
Wouldn't it be possible to 'fact check' those claims

It is possible to fact check claims, but doing so requires you to do the research.

Right now there are some technical, or at least technically inclined, tests of the Sigma lens, but there are none of the Panasonic.

So you could ask different ai agents all day, but you could never possibly get an answer because there is no data to compare.

Sigma or Panasonic macro lens for scanning film

pkr1979

koraks

Moderator

pkr1979

koraks

Moderator

250swb

pkr1979

koraks

Moderator

pkr1979

koraks

Moderator

brbo

koraks

Moderator

pkr1979

brbo

250swb

pkr1979

_T_

250swb

koraks

Moderator

dokko

ChatGPT - Sigma vs Panasonic Macro

‎Gemini - Lens Choice for Film Scanning

_T_

runswithsizzers

ChatGPT - Sigma vs Panasonic Macro

‎Gemini - Lens Choice for Film Scanning

pkr1979

Which is Better for Film Scanning?

pkr1979

pkr1979

_T_

Sigma or Panasonic macro lens for scanning film

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Which is Better for Film Scanning?​

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Which is Better for Film Scanning?