Which is better for neg scanning, macro lens or enlarger lens?
-
H
- Thread starter Eric Rose
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Sold NIKON D800 (read)
- Started by Acere
-
Want to Buy WTB Konica Hexar RF
- Started by axestrata
-
For Sale Multiple Signed Photographic Books
- Started by tallenpatterson
-
Sold Graflex XL Outfit with 180mm f/4.5 Zeiss Sonnar lens, roll film back and EXTRAS!
- Started by pdccamerqs
-
Want to Buy Color by Beseler Print Processing Drums
- Started by logan2z
Forum statistics
Image Quality...probably a tie, with both being flat field corrected and intended for use at very close focus distances to either side of the nodal point of the lens., with minimal lens distortion (pincushion/barrel)
For user convenience, the camera lens designed with coupling of diaphram to allow open-aperture focus and stopdown when exposure is made, while a preset aperture enlarger lens requires use of the stopdown lever to open and close
For user convenience, the camera lens designed with coupling of diaphram to allow open-aperture focus and stopdown when exposure is made, while a preset aperture enlarger lens requires use of the stopdown lever to open and close
Last edited:
I'm wondering why your Nikon -- assuming it is really a macro lens -- is only producing "ok" results. In any event, the Schneider will give great results -- IF REVERSED. But, reversed or not, your enlarging lens needs to be adapted to your camera, and you'll need a means of extension -- both can be accomplished, but you lose all the features of your Nikon lens. I'd try to figure out why the Nikon is just "ok", first.
Are you using the ES-2 adapter that mounts on the the lens? The D800e, 60 Macro and ES-2 make a compact unit for scanning. A good light source is the only other thing that's needed.
When I bought my Z6, I did a lot of comparisons with an 80mm Minolta enlarging lens, Nikkor 55 macro, a rented 60mm Makro-planar, and a rented Z-mount 60mm macro. The 80 was very slightly better, but the need to use it on a bellows made for a cumbersome setup. I’ve pretty much settled on using a nikkor 60mm macro with a D850 body, the extra resolution outweighs the advantage of the enlarging lens, though I’ve not tried it with the DSLR.
Basically, on the Z, the 80 did slightly better at rendering fine detail than the other lenses, but the Z didn’t quite render the film grain. With the D850, the film grain is sharply rendered, so fine image detail naturally follows. So, I don’t think I’d gain much with the enlarging lens.
YMMV
Basically, on the Z, the 80 did slightly better at rendering fine detail than the other lenses, but the Z didn’t quite render the film grain. With the D850, the film grain is sharply rendered, so fine image detail naturally follows. So, I don’t think I’d gain much with the enlarging lens.
YMMV
Eric, it really depends on the lens. You can find a vast amount of high quality tests at https://closeuphotography.com
My take is that both will suck in practice because for scanning film you need autofocus. Manually focusing on each frame is a poor strategy. You will not be able to reliably achieve optimal focus for every shot. Not because it's hard, but because when you have 4+ rolls to scan, fatigue will eventually set in.
My take is that both will suck in practice because for scanning film you need autofocus. Manually focusing on each frame is a poor strategy. You will not be able to reliably achieve optimal focus for every shot. Not because it's hard, but because when you have 4+ rolls to scan, fatigue will eventually set in.
I recently did a quick test with my D800e using a 60mm Micro-Nikkor D vs a reverse mounted Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon N. Both mounted on a PB-4 bellows - copying a 35mm slide using that bellows’ slide holder attachment. I use a Blackmagic Video assist 4K as an external monitor. It helps greatly with focusing- which is indeed tricky.
Surprised to see the Micro-Nikkor won the first round. It was distinctly sharper. I will test further. Ironically I’m struggling to find a slide to copy that is sufficiently sharp across the frame to really test these lenses properly.
I use flash as a light source.
My micro Nikkor 105D generally has produced the most impressive results over the past year of building a set-up, but the long focal length can be a problem for certain tasks.
Unless you’re doing significant volume, I think specifying AF is an unnecessary limitation on possible setups. An external monitor / tethered laptop seems like a necessity though. The system is only as good as its weakest link -as ever. That’s probably focus / uneven light source/ misalignment rather than optics / dust.
… misalignment / dust rather than optics.
That certainly depends on the project in question. If you are simply making 1:1 (or whatever) shots, then you only need to focus once. And, of course, it's important to stop-down to get the best resolution from center to edge. Depending on the camera, an eye-piece magnifier is a big help.
My copying is always manual focus -- from submini to 4x5 -- using Tominon process lenses (usually 75mm), and I don't find manually focusing a "poor strategy" at all.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,794
- Format
- Multi Format
Why reverse the enlarging lens? The OP is going to be working at 1:1, not above.
Couldn't agree more!
I was scanning with a (used) Fuji GFX-R and Mamiya 80 f/4 Macro and getting results all over the place--from excellent to piss poor. Dumped that kit and got a (used) Panasonic S1R to pair with my Sigma L mount 70 macro. Not sure that my best results are better than with the previous kit, but the autofocus makes all my results as good as they can be.
I've sent 120 negatives out for professional drum scanning and compared the results: no comparison. Still, I'm happy with what I can do and appreciate that if there's a special shot that warrants the cost of outsourcing, I'll do that.
But autofocus, especially calibrating each time I sit down with peak focusing on a 1951 USAF resolution test chart as an initial setting, has made a world of difference in predictable results.
Last edited:
I have tried numerous film holders, and none of them allow this luxury. As you advance film, the optimal focus field varies from shot to shot because the film surface always bends slightly, unless you have your negative sandwiched between two pieces of ANR glass.
I have a Atmos monitor I will hook up.. great idea!! The 60mm lens did what I would classify as an "ok" job. I have made sure everything is aligned, shake proof and use the mirror up and self timer to trigger the camera. What aperture are you using on your 60mm? I am using f8 but will do some testing to see if in fact that is the best aperture to use. I have a friend who uses a FF mirrorless camera and the latest Sigma macro lens. He is getting outstanding results. Mind you he is also copying MF B/W negs. I
have tried both manual and AF with similar results.
I'm retired so have all the time in the world to putter around getting it right. Thanks for all the suggestions and help. Keep it coming.
Your set-up is undoubtedly very different from mine, but I haven't had that problem. I always expose stopped down, which in my setup gives enough DOF. Occasionally I check focus with a 2.5X magnifier, but that almost always is unneeded.
It depends. If you were using a Pentax K-1, the smc D FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro is an excellent choice for near 1:1. Their 100mm macro, for example, is not as good near 1:1.
Film flatness will be more of a problem in DSLR scanning than consumer flatbed because there is more detail being picked up. I never noticed film flatness problems on my Epson flatbed but I notice them using its same holder to DSLR scan on the Pentax K-1 with Pixel Shift. Because you're comparing around 7 real megapixels with 36.
Likely until you get your film-flatness down, any stopped-down good quality lens made for macro work or enlarging will do fine, and won't be the limiting factor.
You may be mistaking the image quality of your current lens with the loss in focus from slight curvature of the film.
Film flatness will be more of a problem in DSLR scanning than consumer flatbed because there is more detail being picked up. I never noticed film flatness problems on my Epson flatbed but I notice them using its same holder to DSLR scan on the Pentax K-1 with Pixel Shift. Because you're comparing around 7 real megapixels with 36.
Likely until you get your film-flatness down, any stopped-down good quality lens made for macro work or enlarging will do fine, and won't be the limiting factor.
You may be mistaking the image quality of your current lens with the loss in focus from slight curvature of the film.
It's off topic but why do we call it scanning? Digitize a negative, slide or print with a camera is not scanning. Scanning involves a moving sensor array.
What would you call it?
Digitizing.
The BM video assist has focus peaking, which the D800e doesn’t have. That makes manual focusing more practical. Like Steven above, I refocus every time - tolerances demand that - even with a solid setup like my PB4 bellows. But I don’t feel the need for AF which would preclude using all sorts of useful equipment like bellows, reverse mounting, enlarger lenses etc.
In my test of the micro-Nikkor 60mm I got the best results at f8. I feel there’s more to get out of both lenses tbh and with fine tuning the enlarger lens might perform better - so I don’t see my results as conclusive.
As others have pointed out there are so many systematic variables that the lens optics are likely not the most influential factor.
In my test of the micro-Nikkor 60mm I got the best results at f8. I feel there’s more to get out of both lenses tbh and with fine tuning the enlarger lens might perform better - so I don’t see my results as conclusive.
As others have pointed out there are so many systematic variables that the lens optics are likely not the most influential factor.
For microfilm conversion to digital form, they call the process 'microfilm digitization', and the National Archives uses the same terminology
...so 'film digitization"
Interestingly, even the FIRST system to convert microfilm to digital form calls the process 'digitization' but they call the machines they use 'scanners'!
"Since introducing the first production microfilm scanner to the world in 1989, Mekel Technology has continued to offer the most advanced roll film, microfiche and aperture card scanning systems on the market....Mekel scanners offer superior image quality at high scan speeds to convert all microfilm into digital images....Since 2003, Mekel Technology has been owned and operated by The Crowley Company and became Crowley’s first manufacturing division. " The Merkels use 'Camera/Optics'.
Last edited:
MattKing
Moderator
When it comes to using single exposures with a digital camera to digitize film, "Scanning" is one of those commonly used terms that makes no logical sense - "scanning" usually implying a moving sensor and/or multiple exposures stitched together - but like many other commonly used terms, its familiarity seems to succeed over logic.
MattKing
Moderator
That being said, the reason that it is not a good idea to follow the suggestion above that you use a lens from a "scanner", is that those lenses are optimized for a very small field for each exposure - just a fraction of the area of the film being imaged.
It goes without saying that for camera digitization, you need optics that image a much wider field - most often the entire film area for each exposure.
Most "macro" lenses are actually designed to give good results at close distances and at distances up to infinity. A lens that is optimized only for the sort of magnifications that are needed for digitization would theoretically be better. But there aren't many of those in the modern lens lines - at least outside of industrial applications.
It goes without saying that for camera digitization, you need optics that image a much wider field - most often the entire film area for each exposure.
Most "macro" lenses are actually designed to give good results at close distances and at distances up to infinity. A lens that is optimized only for the sort of magnifications that are needed for digitization would theoretically be better. But there aren't many of those in the modern lens lines - at least outside of industrial applications.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |