nongfuspring
Well-known
After reading this: http://www.addicted2light.com/2012/11/29/how-to-scan-films-using-a-digital-camera/ I got interested in "scanning" my film (mostly 35mm) through an x-e1 and so was wondering what would be the best option for this lens wise. Honestly I don't know much about macro lenses, so I don't really know what would be best. I also have some enlarger lenses and a C/Y Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.4 that I could perhaps use with some bellows or a close focus helicoid adapters, or would the best option just be to adapt a cheap SLR macro off ebay?
charjohncarter
Veteran
When I did this I used a Macro 50 Pentax lenses from the 60s. I had it attached to a Pentax slide copier. The non macro lenses have a curvature when photographing close-ups.
Since then I have purchased a scanner. The above system worked fine but there were adjustments when 'scanning' 35mm or 120. I certainly can't see any difference is IQ. But color negatives were a challenge.
Since then I have purchased a scanner. The above system worked fine but there were adjustments when 'scanning' 35mm or 120. I certainly can't see any difference is IQ. But color negatives were a challenge.
marek_
Established
Hi,
I've been using a Ricoh GXR M-Kit + Leica M bellows + Schneider 50mm enlarging lens and lightbox. This method produces far superior results to that my Epson V600. From the scans I can see b&w grain and get colour slides as they look on the film. I've had to make some film holders out of card but this was no trouble. Enlarger lenses are copy lenses so perfectly designed for this type of application - zero geometric distortion, even illuminated field, high resolution. I think this would be a good combo with an x-e1.
Mark
I've been using a Ricoh GXR M-Kit + Leica M bellows + Schneider 50mm enlarging lens and lightbox. This method produces far superior results to that my Epson V600. From the scans I can see b&w grain and get colour slides as they look on the film. I've had to make some film holders out of card but this was no trouble. Enlarger lenses are copy lenses so perfectly designed for this type of application - zero geometric distortion, even illuminated field, high resolution. I think this would be a good combo with an x-e1.
Mark
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Any enlarger lens of copying lens will do the work just fine
I don;t know about the Planar you mention, but the Pentax (Takumar) 50/1.4 does an OK work when stopped down but is not stellar... the field is not flat
I don;t know about the Planar you mention, but the Pentax (Takumar) 50/1.4 does an OK work when stopped down but is not stellar... the field is not flat
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I use a Pre-AI Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 plus M tube for copying slides, coupled with a Sony A7 body and a Nikon ES-1 slide holder. This works well at 1:1 or very close to it.
For the smaller format Fuji camera, you'll need to go down to about 1:2 to 1:1.8 magnification to capture the full 35mm slide frame.
G
For the smaller format Fuji camera, you'll need to go down to about 1:2 to 1:1.8 magnification to capture the full 35mm slide frame.
G
mdarnton
Well-known
A real macro lens will mop the floor with an enlarger lens (I did actual tests against Nikkor, Componon, and a couple of others), since macros are designed for this distance and enlarger lenses aren't. I was surprised how poorly all of the enlarging lenses showed compared with micro-Nikkors.
I have been using the 55/3.5 micro-Nikkor, and I know from the past, doing slide duping years ago, that the 50/3.5 Olympus macro will do this type of work. Probably any good brand macro can handle it. My 55/3.5 and 60/2.8 AF-D were tied, so there's no reason to spend a lot of bucks.
If you set things up carefully and parallel (!), you can beat a flatbed for 35mm this way, and be just as good in the corners as the center.
I have been using the 55/3.5 micro-Nikkor, and I know from the past, doing slide duping years ago, that the 50/3.5 Olympus macro will do this type of work. Probably any good brand macro can handle it. My 55/3.5 and 60/2.8 AF-D were tied, so there's no reason to spend a lot of bucks.
If you set things up carefully and parallel (!), you can beat a flatbed for 35mm this way, and be just as good in the corners as the center.
nongfuspring
Well-known
Thanks for the advice guys. I came across a minolta MD 35-70mm 3.5 macro (attached to a Seagull) in a second hand store a little while ago and will head over to pick it up today, with a bit of luck it should do the trick and maybe make for handy portrait lens. Rumours on old forums say it's a rebranded R lens, is that true?
Noll
Well-known
Cant say much about you minolta zoom - though I will be surprised if it gets you closer than 1:10 without extension tubes. I will say I have been very impressed with the olympus 50 mm f/3.5 macro. Cheap, sharp and virtually zero distortion on cropped sensors. Performs best at f5.6-8
mdarnton
Well-known
I used to have a gig doing film strips and slide shows for education. I had a fancy Bencher (I think--that was 1974) copy setup for doing all the duping. After running some tests, I took off the Bencher head, hung one of my OM1s in its place and did all my duping with my OM1 and the Oly Macro. It ground the fancy, expensive setup, which I think was based on a specialized 60mm Componon, to dust. The motorized stand was nice, though. 
That Olympus macro was an incredible lens.
You have to be careful how you stack the tubes to get to most from the floating elements, though. You don't want the lens set at infinity when you're just over the edge of 1:2 with a 25mm tube, for instance. Getting 1:1 by putting on 50mm of tubes is the not-best way.
That Olympus macro was an incredible lens. You have to be careful how you stack the tubes to get to most from the floating elements, though. You don't want the lens set at infinity when you're just over the edge of 1:2 with a 25mm tube, for instance. Getting 1:1 by putting on 50mm of tubes is the not-best way.
ZeissFan
Veteran
I agree with the others:
- A true macro lens would be my first choice.
- A not-fast normal lens would be next.
- A zoom lens would be my last option.
- A true macro lens would be my first choice.
- A not-fast normal lens would be next.
- A zoom lens would be my last option.
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
Lots of zooms got labeled as "macro" without any real qualifications to back up the label. It might be OK, but any real macro lens would most likely kill the zoom WRT image quality, especially as magnification increases.
I've done slide copying with my Canon DSLR with a variety of lenses (bold = still have and use it):
- Pentax S-M-C Macro Takumar 50/4 : much better than the 55/1.8 which is another step better than the 50/1.4 for copy work) : ~$100
- Takumar 55/1.8 : could be a great budget solution as they are generally quite sharp and work well on extension tubes.
- Pentax M 50/4 Macro : similar to the Takumar except no Auto/Manual switch so I sold it : ~$100
- Pentax M 100/4 Macro : good IQ but I wanted more magnification at the time so sold when I got the Vivitar : $125
- Vivitar Series 1 105mm f/2.5 : excellent IQ apart from some CA if used near wide-open in high contrast situations, very sharp with lots of resolution : $250-400
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 : sharp enough with extension tubes but it was a hassle using them and AF is no benefit for me. Lack of flat field never really bothered me much but maybe I'm not picky enough
- Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG : very sharp, less vignetting than the EF50, better colors, but was huge and seemed to have less working distance due to being so big.
For copying duties, I have an Asahi Pentax bellows in M42 mount and the related Pentax slide copier, so I can run basically any magnification I want with the 50mm Macro.
nongfuspring
Well-known
Thanks for the additional advice. Noll, you were right about the minolta - it really doesn't get very close at all, in fact the magnification is hardly any better than my non-macro 50mm prime lenses.
I'll be sure to check out all of those lens suggestions, much appreciated.
I'll be sure to check out all of those lens suggestions, much appreciated.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
With your x-e1, you'll want a reproduction ratio a little less than 1:1, perhaps up to 1:1 if you are going to crop a bit. (Image on APS-C is 2/3 the size of the original 35mm slide or negative.)
The very best IMHO: APO Rodagon D 1:1 or the Olympus 80mm f/4 Macro. These are optimized for 1:1. Adapters and extension tubes might get just a bit complicated.
Excellent: Any of the major manufacturer's 50 or 55mm macro lenses. The 55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor will do a great job, but they are all probably good and much better than a normal lens or zoom. You'll want a 27.5mm extension tube with the Nikkor; this gives you from 1:2 up to 1:1 reproduction ratio, just what you need for "scanning" 35mm.
The very best IMHO: APO Rodagon D 1:1 or the Olympus 80mm f/4 Macro. These are optimized for 1:1. Adapters and extension tubes might get just a bit complicated.
Excellent: Any of the major manufacturer's 50 or 55mm macro lenses. The 55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor will do a great job, but they are all probably good and much better than a normal lens or zoom. You'll want a 27.5mm extension tube with the Nikkor; this gives you from 1:2 up to 1:1 reproduction ratio, just what you need for "scanning" 35mm.
DC1030
DC1030
I got really nice results with a Nikkor 3.5/55 with extension tube (cheap third-party, on ebay) mounted on a XE-1.
Take a designated macro lens!
Take a designated macro lens!
Wouter
Well-known
Really interested in these setups. I have just discovered a Tomioka 2.8/60mm macro that goes to 1:1 in m42 mount. Will this one do?
kxl
Social Documentary
The only zoom lens I would consider for this would be the Vivitar Series 1 90-180mm f/4.5 Flat Field Macro Lens, manufactured for Vivitar by Kino Precision, who also makes the Kiron 105/2.8 (IMHO, one of, if not the sharpest mid-range macro lens ever built).
C_E
Newbie
Do any experienced macro guys/DSLR scanners know if would it be possible to to use a hawks or VC close focus M to NEX adapter with a DR summicron with a sony A7 to scan negs? Any thoughts?
Last edited:
Godfrey
somewhat colored
To do a good job on 35mm negs or slides with a Sony A7, you need to be able to achieve about 1:1 magnification. With a 50mm focal length, symmetrical design lens, that requires a total of 50mm extension. For example, a Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 native lens mount includes 25mm extension and the ability to reach 1:2 magnification; it requires an additional 25mm M-tube to reach 1:1 magnification.
Here's the Sony A7 fitted with Novoflex NEX/NIK adapter, ASTAT/NEX tripod mounting foot, and Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 Pre-AI set to 1:2 magnification:
The Leica DR Summicron achieves about 1:7 or 1:8 magnification without accessories. That means it probably needs about 35mm more extension to approach 1:1 magnification. I don't know of close-focus mount adapters with anywhere near that amount of extension. Most seem to have about 10mm extension.
From a cost standpoint, it doesn't make much sense either. You can buy a Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 Pre-AI with M-tube for about $85-125, and a good quality mount adapter for another $100. Add a Nikon ES-1 Slide Stage for $60 and you have a perfect setup for copying mounted slides or negs that is less expensive than the Voigtländer adapter ($300). And produces the same if not higher quality...
G