Macro Lens for Canon 5d Mk II for Scanning film

[adamr1699]

I need some help deciding on a macro lens for scanning film with my 5D mk II. It doesn't need to be autofocus, nor does it need to be a native eos lens, as long as I can easily adapt it.
I will be scanning color negative and black and white film, almost all 35mm, with the occasional roll of 120. I have a pretty flexible price range. I really just want a super detailed lens that will bring out the best in the film.
I was looking at the Canon 100 2.8, possibly the canon 50 2.5... Any ideas?
What do you use?
Thanks!
Adam R.

 

[BlackXList]

both the 50 and the 100 are fantastic lenses, I own and use both regularly.

I had 4 Canon 50mms, 1.8, 1.4 and 2.5 and used to take the 2.5 over the others almost every time.
It's only the Sigma art 50 that replaced it in my work bag, but I do love that 2.5.

The 100 2.8 is also absolutely fantastic, and permanently in my work bag.

 

[sojournerphoto]

100 2.8 - super lens and will give you a bit more working distance than the 50

 

[WJJ3]

I'm using the compact macro (50mm f2.5) on a 40D to scan film and am very happy. I have to say the autofocus is a godsend and really speeds up the process.

 

[adamr1699]

both the 50 and the 100 are fantastic lenses, I own and use both regularly.

I had 4 Canon 50mms, 1.8, 1.4 and 2.5 and used to take the 2.5 over the others almost every time.
It's only the Sigma art 50 that replaced it in my work bag, but I do love that 2.5.

The 100 2.8 is also absolutely fantastic, and permanently in my work bag.

Thanks! Are you using the L version of the lens or the regular usm?

 

[BlackXList]

I'm using the regular USM version, I use it mostly for live music work, and it's extremely sharp. No hesitation in recommending it at all.

I'd probably pick the 100 for scanning, WJJ3 is using the 50 on a crop body, so it's approximately 85 equiv, 100 might make life a bit easier, but I honestly don't think you can go wrong with either.

 

[Fixcinater]

I prefer scanning and almost all macro applications with a longer lens.

I regularly use a Bokina (Tokina AT-X 90mm f/2.5) and a Vivitar Series 1 105mm f/2.5 which are excellent, aside from some color fringing but that's rather easily resolved these days and not an issue when "scanning." Canon 40D body.

More subject separation from background, which I prefer, as well as what I consider to be a more natural perspective. 50mm can be hard to light for macros as well.

So, I'd vote heavily towards something longer.

 

[adamr1699]

Just got the 100 2.8 usm on the Bay. Should arrive next week, very excited to start scanning.

 

[dourbalistar]

Just got the 100 2.8 usm on the Bay. Should arrive next week, very excited to start scanning.

A good friend of mine uses a table top light panel, a tripod (I think with a reversed center column), and a Canon 5D3 with the 100mm f/2.8 Macro tethered to Lightroom to scan his film.

 

[Pioneer]

When I sold off my entire Canon kit a few years back, I held onto the 50/2.5 and my my Canon 5D to run it. Combined with an old Minolta copy stand that combo still produces wonderful results.

 

[BlackXList]

When the 100 arrives, take it out for a play as well.

I guarantee it'll end up getting much more use than just scanning, truly a fantastic lens.

 

[adamr1699]

When the 100 arrives, take it out for a play as well.

I guarantee it'll end up getting much more use than just scanning, truly a fantastic lens.

Oh I will for sure. It'll be my go to portrait lens.

 

[philipus]

I have the 100L and used to have the non-L version. I have used both on film and with an 5D2 which I owned for a while. Sure the L has image stabilizer but I felt the non-L version was sharper. I would easily buy the non-L over the L today if stabilizer isn't an absolute must. The non-L is a gem.

As for digitizing, I did a test comparing the L with my Coolscan V ED. It's quite clear that one can get great results digitizing film.

br
philip