BEOON the Leitz Copy Stand

[Daan]

Thanks for the heads up about the 75mm.

 

[Peter Jennings]

I've used the 55mm Micro Nikkors with the BEOON and they work, but I prefer the EL Nikkor 50mm. The corners look better with the EL Nikkor. As Emile suggested, try stopping down a bit more

 

[quadtones]

I've been using the BEOON with both the 50mm Summicron v4 and a 50mm APO Rodagon, and each have their strengths, and give pretty good results with 35mm negatives. On the other hand, I have some 645 up to 6x7 negs I'd like to "scan." Has anybody tried something like a WA Schneider enlarging lens? 40mm Focotar? Also, what about reversing a longer focal length enlarging lens? Is there enough column length on the device?

 

[Emile de Leon]

You sacrifice generally on the WA...you want longer..not shorter..
WA are best when you don't want the enlarger head too high..and the Focotar 40 WA is supposed to be ..well..disappointing..
Best to get something flat field and good in the corners..
A 60mm Nikkor is supposed to be great..

 

[quadtones]

Thanks, Emile. I wasn't sure about the Focotar. I've used EL-Nikkors in the past, just not in the digital era. I look at options for that lens.

 

[Emile de Leon]

Focotar-2 is great as well...the 50mm...not the 40..

 

[quadtones]

Thanks Emile. Do you or others have any experience with the 60mm Focotar? There's one up on the big auction site at a reasonable price right now.

 

[Emile de Leon]

I have no experience with the 60mm Focotar..but at that price..definitely worth a shot I would think..
Maybe you can find some reviews on the Leica forums before you buy..
But why not buy brand new..here..
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/44385-USA/Rodenstock_452340_50mm_f_2_8_APO_Rodagon_N.html
as a lot of the well used darkroom lenses..are hazy..

 

[coelacanth]

I've been getting some inquiries about my BEOON setup via PM once in a while.

Currently I'm using BEOON with

• Flat LED lightbox (really a thin panel) powered by USB. ($40 or so on Amazon)
• Handmade film holder, oversized to capture thin borders around the frame. ($ - priceless)
• OM-D E-M5 MkII for its high-res mode and tilting screen for easy grain-checking and framing. ($ - had it for underwater rig)
• EL-Nikkor 50/2.8 ($15)

I'm getting about 25 mp worth of scan with this setup for 35mm. I'm sourcing a few thin extension tubes to bring up the magnification a tad bit. My goal is to have the entire frame plus a bit of borders filling the sensor. I'd love to know if someone had good luck with a 60mm lens.

Super-Anguloning by Suguru Nishioka, on Flickr


When you need a drink or two or three by Suguru Nishioka, on Flickr


Moto Cam by Suguru Nishioka, on Flickr
(fuzzy bits at bottom left is my DIY holder showing up as Barnack Leica film gate is larger than M's)


We the People by Suguru Nishioka, on Flickr
(2 frames scanned separately and combined on computer)

 

[Peter Jennings]

Thanks coelacanth. Your setup is almost identical to mine, but I'm using a Sony A7. The EL-Nikkor 50/2.8 gives me good results.

 

[roscoetuff]

Can a Sony A7xyz actually mate a lens to this, or do the lenses have to be Leica's own? I've got a Zeiss Contax CY Makro Plannar 100mm that'd be sweet to use on these sorts of functions, but also a couple of Zeiss 50's running around. Looks kind of Leica lens specific... which seems to be the same story with Nikon's copy set up.

 

[coelacanth]

Can a Sony A7xyz actually mate a lens to this, or do the lenses have to be Leica's own? I've got a Zeiss Contax CY Makro Plannar 100mm that'd be sweet to use on these sorts of functions, but also a couple of Zeiss 50's running around. Looks kind of Leica lens specific... which seems to be the same story with Nikon's copy set up.

The body side can be pretty much anything as most of mirrorless systems got some sort of M mount adapter available for cheap at this point.

The lens side must be either M (via BEOON stock adapter) or 39mm LTM mount, which is the same mount as many many enlarger lenses out there. I don't know if there are adapters that will convert different lens mounts to M or LTM. I have used Contax mount 50/2 via Amedeo adapter when I didn't have other suitable 50mm taking lens.

 

[coelacanth]

Look Up by Suguru Nishioka, on Flickr

Shot and scanned with Zeiss Opton Sonnar 50/2 via BEOON.

 

[jim0266]

Some initial scans with my BEOON, a Fuji x-e2s and an APO Rodagon enlarging lens. Used the A+D tube. Anything at the link below with DSCF in the file name is with this trio. Kodachrome 64 slides. Rented the Fuji and will be experimenting with a Sony a7 later this week. Click on any of the images to see them larger.

Kodachromes scanned with a Leica BEOON, Fuji x-e2s and APO Rodagon

 

[Emile de Leon]

Good work Jim!
Glad to hear the setup works.

 

[coelacanth]

Another little update. I wanted to control and fine tune the magnification so I can fill the sensor (in my case, OM-D in high-res mode in 3:2 ratio) with the frame plus tiny bit of film borders. With My EL-Nikkor 50/2.8 and stock BEOON tubes, I was getting either too high or low magnification to achieve this.

I just received a bunch of M39 extension tubes from Ukraine and played with it.

Beyond the actual focal length of the taking lens you use (they aren't exactly 50mm), you need to factor in the film gate size of the camera you took the picture with, as well the lens used. For example, modern M with 50mm will give you relatively small image while a Barnack Leica with Super-Angulon 21/4 will give you quite a bit larger image (can we call that medium format now?? j/k).

Samples below were scanned with BEOON, OM-D E-M5 MkII, EL-Nikkor 50/2.8, and a stack of extension tubes. Photos were inverted then auto tone applied in Lightroom.

This photo was shot with IIIf and Super-Angulon 21/4. Wider film gate and more light going around the film gate due to SA's optical design. You can see the neighboring frames are right up there. For most regular lenses, my IIIf has quite decent frame spacing.

Now, here is a photo I took with modern MP and Elmar-M 50/2.8 in 2010. It's got narrower modern film gate opening and normal lens image projection. I used the exact same combination of extension tubes as the 1st SA shot. You can see how much of extra space you'd get.

And finally, I added a very thin extension ring (came with EL-Nikkor) to the previous setup to get a tiny bit of magnification boost. This is probably what I'd like for my M cameras. With a bit of practice, I'm sure framing will be very quick and relatively accurate as you'll be seeing bright thin frame all around the image when you scan. Notice auto toning in LR adjusted the image differently from the example above due to not having extra black borders.

I think I'll be adding the final small ring for M camera, and removing it for Barnack to get similar amount of borders.

BTW, with this setup, I'm getting 7296 px x 4864 px scan, which is roughly 35.5 mp.

 

[coelacanth]

As a test, this particular scan was done with my usual exposure setup on the scanning camera (OM-D) and basically no editing in LR other than removing a couple of dust spots. Resized to 5000 px wide from the original 7296 px.


Wonder Plate by Suguru Nishioka, on Flickr

100% crop

 

[Peter Jennings]

Here's a look at my setup. From bottom to top: light table bought on eBay, acrylic negative holder I cobbled together, BEOON, EL-Nikkor 50/2.8, M-E/F adapter, Sony A7

[/url]Leitz BEOON scanning by Peter Jennings, on Flickr[/IMG]

Here's what I get using C and D rings.

[/url]Leitz BEOON scanning by Peter Jennings, on Flickr[/IMG]

All the other stuff I do in Aperture.

[/url]Leitz BEOON scanning by Peter Jennings, on Flickr[/IMG]

I'm immensely pleased with results and the time/effort it takes to get them. I really wouldn't consider a different system at this point.

Thanks!

 

[Emile de Leon]

BEEON is great for doing med format negs too up to 6x9..made my life easier doing a bunch of my dads old negs..
And if you have a Valoy 2 lying around..and you can find the copystand adapter for it..you ca do LF as well..
Easy peasy..

 

[mdarnton]

I did quite of experimentation setting up my system for duping negs, and here's some of what I learned:
-straight enlarging lenses, being designed for 1:10 or greater, are not the best for the job; camera lenses designed for normal work were generally relatively terrible.
-among those, quality can vary considerably with no relationship to price
-it is absolutely essential that first the optimum aperture for that lens in that use be determined, by thirds of a stop, and second that all lenses be tested at their optimum aperture. Thanks to immediate feedback via digital cameras' back screen, these are easy tests to do.

In general, I found that most of the lenses I tested were sharpest, and best at the corners, at around f8 or wider. Smaller than that and grain quicklybegan to blur. Up to there the center could be good, but the edges softer.

Tested comparing apples to apples in this way my three micro-Nikkors, early, middle, and af-D versions, all beat out a 50/2.8 el-Nikkor, as did an el-Omicron. An old f/4 Componon was inferior to all. A quirky 50mm/5.6 (I think it was) Rodagon that I'd gotten in a trade and which is very obscure, apparently, didn't measure up to the others. I expected the Nikkor to do better, but its failing was slightly lower overall sharpness that wouldn't have really mattered much, but worse, lower contrast. The example I used was clean and clear. I didn't test my two Summicrons, but seriously doubt that they could have performed anywhere near the others at their optimum. A 50/2 af-D Nikkor was terrible at the edges, as I would expect in a critical, flat, close macro environment. No surprise there at all. In every case, my results may have been skewed by by the particular lens example I tested!

After reading others' experience, it seemed that the 1:1 version of the Apo-Rodagon D was going to be the best lens of all for this, having been designed for this type of work, but I found it too expensive, so I looked around some more until I found people saying that the 63/2.8 el-Nikkor was a lens of similar design and ability. I bought one of those, and it bumped things up considerably; the best aperture approached f/11, and the difference between apertures was much less. On all of the other lenses I tested 1/3 of a stop made a big difference, but not so much for the 63mm. One can find them for around $125 if you look hard enough.

The only lens I wouldn't have used at all was the old Componon, but I didn't have a new version to test.

My take-away from this was that it's essential to do careful tests, and essential to first determine each lens' best aperture.

Another thing I discovered was that for 35mm the results were as good as anything, including some dedicated 35mm scanners I'd used. For 6x6 it was a draw with a modern flatbed, and that for larger sizes my G4050 flatbed (supposedly topping out around 1500dpi, real resolution) crushes camera scanning. It's easy to do a good 8000x10000 flatbed scan with even a cheap flatbed (despite their fantasy specs, flatbeds such as the G4050 and the whole Epson line top out at around 2300dpi in real tests by virtually anyone you will read who's done careful testing, which is less than most digitals for 35mm, but works fine for much larger film).

I am currently using a Nikon D7200 (24Mp) and 63/2.8 el-Nikkor for 35mm scanning, the HP flatbed for larger.