DSLR Scanning – Macro: 55mm vs 105mm

[Godfrey]

Thanks Godfrey, But don't you think the quality would increase with 1:1 mag?

I don't understand your question, or perhaps you don't understand what you're asking.

• If you have a 55mm lens fitted with extension tubes and you are imaging a 35mm negative to the full frame of a 24x36 mm format digital camera, you are imaging the negative at 1:1 magnification.
• If you were imaging the negative at 1:2 magnification, it would only fill the center portion of the viewfinder on your A7: it would be a quarter the size of the camera's field of view.

Focal length is NOT magnification.

Now think: What was your question?

G

 

[Godfrey]

I would say 1:1 is superior. If you use a 55 micro Nikkor, then a PK13 extension tube will give you 1:1. ...

This is true when using a Micro-Nikkor 55mm on a Nikon SLR body. However, the OP is using a Leica BEOON copy stand, which is equipped with a Leica M lens mount on the bottom (to fit a Leica lens) and a Leica M lens flange on the top side (to fit a Leica M body).

The thickness of the stand's mounting flanges and structure itself is part of the lens extension required to achieve the magnification for 1:1 copy. He fits a Leica M mount adapter to the Sony body to fit the A7, and a Nikon to Leica M mount adapter to fit the Nikkor lens, so those numbers in the mount registration cancel out, but the extension required for the lens to achieve 1:1 past its focusing helicoid is less than the PK-13 because of the additional 10mm or so extension provided by the BEOON itself.

A 40mm lens cannot be used successful on this BEOON copy stand setup: it's too short a focal length. I've tried and the stand structure just adds too much extension for it to work. That would require a different kind of copy stand.

G

 

[Dwig]

Thanks everyone, but the new question is if 1:1 is superior to 1:2 (with tubes)

It all depends on the relative sizes of the sensor and the original film.


If you are using a "full frame" digital camera and duping 35mm full frame originals, then you need to be duping at near 1:1. If you are using an APS-c digital camera you need to work at nears 1:2. If the original is some format other than 35mm then then you could need some other magnification.

 

[MemphisMonroe]

It all depends on the relative sizes of the sensor and the original film.


If you are using a "full frame" digital camera and duping 35mm full frame originals, then you need to be duping at near 1:1. If you are using an APS-c digital camera you need to work at nears 1:2. If the original is some format other than 35mm then then you could need some other magnification.

Yes I do use a full frame camera and want to scan 135mm film. My macro lens is 1:2 so I need tubes to get it to the 1:1.

So my question is if it's worth the upgrade to a 1:1 lens if I want higher quality scans?

 

[Huss]

Yes I do use a full frame camera and want to scan 135mm film. My macro lens is 1:2 so I need tubes to get it to the 1:1.

So my question is if it's worth the upgrade to a 1:1 lens if I want higher quality scans?

Of course, how could it not be? Otherwise you are cropping your image to get 1:1
The beauty of 'FF' is that is the same size as 35mm film, so best quality is obtained by shooting 1:1.

 

[charjohncarter]

MemphisMonroe, one of the problems I had with a set-up like yours was stray light invading my image. Some of it is minor but still bothered me.

Here is my set-up:

Untitled by John Carter, on Flickr

 

[Dwig]

Of course, how could it not be? Otherwise you are cropping your image to get 1:1
The beauty of 'FF' is that is the same size as 35mm film, so best quality is obtained by shooting 1:1.

No.


Just because a lens focuses to 1:1 on its own doesn't mean that it is "better" than one limited to 1:2 natively if you also use a proper extension tube to get 1:1.

 

[Godfrey]

Yes I do use a full frame camera and want to scan 135mm film. My macro lens is 1:2 so I need tubes to get it to the 1:1.

So my question is if it's worth the upgrade to a 1:1 lens if I want higher quality scans?

I see your misunderstanding now.

Your lens' focusing mount goes to 1:2 magnification and is designed to use an extension tube (Nikkor PK-13) to achieve 1:1 magnification. There is no difference in the lens quality: the Micro-Nikkor 55mm is a high-quality lens specifically designed for high quality close up work in this entire range.

The focusing mount is limited in extension to 1:2 in order to keep the lens more compact, because the helicoid range required to achieve 1:1 is double that required to achieve 1:2. This is a very common if not universal design pattern for 50-60mm macro lenses intended for use on 35mm (FF) SLR cameras.

(The Leica Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm f/2.8, another one of the best macro lenses in this focal length range, is made the same way: it focuses from infinity to 1:2 magnification, and takes the Leica Macro-Adapter-R extension tube to focus in the range from 1:2 to 1:1 magnification.)

G

 

[MemphisMonroe]

Thanks Godfrey, so to put it bluntly – No I won't get better scans with a 1:1 lens 😀?

 

[Godfrey]

Thanks Godfrey, so to put it bluntly – No I won't get better scans with a 1:1 lens 😀?

That is correct.

G

 

[Huss]

No.


Just because a lens focuses to 1:1 on its own doesn't mean that it is "better" than one limited to 1:2 natively if you also use a proper extension tube to get 1:1.

I guess I miss-understood the original question. I took it to mean that he was just going to shoot at 1:2.
All that matters is that you shoot at 1:1, does not matter if you need extension tubes to get there, or a lens that does it w/o it. What matters is 1:1 for 35mm film on a '35mm' aka FF digi sensor.

 

[rfaspen]

Right. Godfrey has provided all the correct information, and understood the confusion of the OP question regarding 1:1 vs. 1:2.

There are some lenses out there that will focus to 1:1 on their own, without the addition of an extension tube. And then there are lenses out there that will only focus to 1:2 on their own, and require an extension tube (often "matched" to work with a given lens) to achieve 1:1 magnification.

As Godfrey said: A lens marked "1:1" on it is not necessarily better than a lens marked "1:2" on it. Its just not part of the equation.

I don't remember which of my micro/macro lenses focus to 1:1 on their own -- probably because its not important. My micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 only makes 1:2 on its own (on a FF Nikon body). A truly excellent lens. I think my Olympus OM 90/2.0 macro will focus to 1:1 on its own. Another excellent lens. Same with the little OM 50/3.5 macro.

I currently use an enlarger lens on my BEOON -- an EL-Nikkor 50/2.8 and it gives good results. I wanted to use an APO-N Rodagon, but I guess it wasn't meant to be (a story for another day). I kind of like the BEOON scanning approach. However, I realize that I still seem to send my negs through my Konica-Minolta Dual Scan IV without remembering to break out the BEOON. I think I need to rearrange my desk with some prompts to help me remember the BEOON next time.

 

[Peter Jennings]

Sensor size or magnification - I don’t think there are set rules for either. I use an A7 on a BEOON with a 50/2.8 EL-Nikkor but I don’t have it set up to make a 1:1 copy. The reasons are that I don’t need a 24mp reproduction as I don’t make large prints. The sensor out-resolves the films I use at less than 1:1. Also, most lenses used for copying will have some fall-off on the edges. In not going 1:1 I can avoid that by just using the “sweet spot” of the lens.

 

[Huss]

Also, most lenses used for copying will have some fall-off on the edges. In not going 1:1 I can avoid that by just using the “sweet spot” of the lens.

Most may, but the Nikkor 60mm 2.8 Micro (a 1:1 lens) does not - at least at the scanning aperture I use it with - F10

Full image:




100% crop from left edge:




The key is making sure the film is held flat.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Get the Nikon extension tube PK-13

Get the Nikon extension tube PK-13

Info below is correct.

Your 55mm macro focuses from infinity to 1:2 on it's own, with 27.5mm extension in the helicoid. Add the 27.5mm extension tube PK-13 and the lens focuses from 1:2 on down to 1:1 for DSLR scanning. The 55mm macro is a very good place to start for DSLR scanning, either with FX of DX.

The difference among Nikon extension tubes is the amount of extension and the coupling features (metering, diaphragm).

Using the 55mm, at a 1:1 reproduction ratio, the lens to subject distance is 110mm and the lens to image sensor distance is 110mm.

Using the 105mm, at a 1:1 reproduction ratio, the lens to subject distance is 210mm and the lens to image sensor distance is 210mm.

The shorter distances of the 55 just works better with me for slide copy. If I were shooting live insects or snakes, the longer distances would be appreciated.

 

[Godfrey]

Thanks, rfaspen!

...
I currently use an enlarger lens on my BEOON -- an EL-Nikkor 50/2.8 and it gives good results. I wanted to use an APO-N Rodagon, but I guess it wasn't meant to be (a story for another day). I kind of like the BEOON scanning approach. However, I realize that I still seem to send my negs through my Konica-Minolta Dual Scan IV without remembering to break out the BEOON. I think I need to rearrange my desk with some prompts to help me remember the BEOON next time.

I tend to use the BEOON for 645, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 cm (mostly 6x6) negative scanning rather than 35mm negatives; I tend to use it more with transparency film in 35mm. For 6x6cm film, the 1:2.4 magnification required is well within the BEOON's range with either the Micro-Nikkor 55mm or the Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm, but I get excellent results with the Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5, Summicron-M 50mm f/2, or my ancient Summicron-R 50mm f/2. The Color Skopar and Summicron-M 50s are the easiest to use with it: They don't require any adapters, the lens' focusing helicoid nets some very fine focus adjustment control, and I use the BEOON's extension tubes as they were intended to be used with them.

For 35mm negative scanning, both b&w and color neg, few optical copy techniques beat the Nikon Coolscan V ED film scanner for ease of use and quality of output. And VueScan makes the negative inversion so easy... 🙂

G