Scanning film with an APS-C sensor compared with full-frame

[Sid836]

Has anyone tried copying with a Printing Nikkor?

http://coinimaging.com/printing-nikkor_105.html

Looks nearly impossible to find one at ebay. But there are macro lenses that do a great job even at 2.8.
Here is what the Micro Nikkor 40mm can do at about 4-5 cm from the 135 film plane (single frame, no stacking):


Down at the old Lavrion port

 

[willie_901]

There's absolutely no useful information in this comment.

Just as your question was ambiguous. If I had recommended the most expensive lens when your budget is limited; a mount you prefer not use; choose MF when you need AF –*that response would have been equally useless.

 

[fjolnir]

Just as your question was ambiguous. If I had recommended the most expensive lens when your budget is limited; a mount you prefer not use; choose MF when you need AF –*that response would have been equally useless.

It certainly would have been

 

[PKR]

Looks nearly impossible to find one at ebay. But there are macro lenses that do a great job even at 2.8.
Here is what the Micro Nikkor 40mm can do at about 4-5 cm from the 135 film plane (single frame, no stacking):

I had one for a while. It was lifted from my repairman's shop by an employee. I haven't been able to replace it. I think images made from a Printing Nikkor would hold up well to some of the lower priced film scanners. Once you compare them to those done on a Creo IQ series scanner it's a different story. Wet scans done on an Epson flat bed can be good for some things. I wonder if the coping technique with a really good lens could / would be better? It certainly would be a lot faster.

 

[ReeRay]

You will need a Leica-mount lens, either M or LTM, to work with the BEOON. My BEOON setup uses a Fuji X-E2 and a 50/2.8 Schneider Componon S enlarging lens (M39 thread). I am _very_ happy with the results.

The BEOON was designed for a 35mm film camera (24x36 sensor) and a 50mm lens. If you change the sensor size to APSC (or anything else) or change the lens focal length it is unlikely that the extension tubes that come with the BEOON will let you fill the sensor frame with the image of the negative. Every combination of the four tubes I tried was either too long to too short. I calculated the necessary length by interpolation and eventually found a 40mm tube that works for me. YMMV

Arrived today. I've found that using my Fuji XT-1 with a Summicron 50mm, 1:1 mask and the "C" extension tube enables me to fill the frame. The results are extremely impressive and close to my Minolta Multi Pro scans. Considerably quicker to use. I have a Schneider Componon S 50mm on order which I'm hopeful will further improve matters. I've also found that using the "Scanhancer" diffusers from the Minolta are great for holding the highlights.

This has been a great buy.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

My suggestion for lens for camera scanning: Be attentive to the optimal magnification for which the lens is designed. In my testing, while many lenses will produce adequate quality in the center way outside their design range, it's in the optimal range that edges/corners are good. Edge/corner quality might not matter much for a portrait of an insect, but will matter for scanning the full frame of a 35mm negative.

To scan 35mm with APS camera you'll want 1:1.5 for the full frame and closer to 1:1 if you are cropping.

As I understand things... Very roughly..

Optimal at magnifications greater than 1:1
- Specialized macro lenses (Photar, Luminar, short focal length bellows lenses)
- Reversed lenses

Optimal at 1:1
- APO Rodagon D 1:1 75mm f/4
- Olympus 80mm f/4 bellows lens (some models w/ fine focus adjustment on lens)
- Any others? Many "macro" lenses will go to 1:1, but this isn't their design optimum.

Optimal at 1:2 to 1:5
- APO Rodagon D 2x 75mm f/4.5 is designed for 1:2
- Most any "macro" lens, including the micro-Nikkors

Optimal at 1:3 to 1:10 (designed for making enlargements of negatives)
- Most enlarging lenses (e.g. 50mm El-Nikkor or Sch Componon S)

Optimal at non-macro distances 1:10 to 1:infinity
- Most non-macro lenses

To scan a negative in parts and stitch, might need more than 1:1, say 2:1. Also to scan 16mm or other small negatives. For this, reverse the above optimal ratios and reverse the lens.

A site with good tests of many macro lenses and detailed charts is coinimaging.com. Look for the green line showing sharpness loss at corners. Here for example, the chart for Minolta 50mm f/3.5 bellows lens, where the corners are equal to center at 1:1.5 on up to 1:4 and probably beyond (green curve, lower is better). This looks like an excellent choice for scanning 35mm with an APS camera, but it's apparently hard to find.

Friends, do I have the above listing about right? Any suggestions or additions?

 

[ptpdprinter]

If I were to go down this road again, I would want an autofocus macro lens from the camera manufacturer. I tried copying negatives with a Fuji XE2, Olympus OM bellows, and Olympus macro lens, and found it very difficult to focus. I gave up and went with a film scanner. I know others have had a better experience, but it just didn't work for me.

 

[Doug A]

Don't forget that if you use a lens designed to cover a 24x36mm negative with a 16x24mm APSC sensor you are not using the corners of the lens coverage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Doug A]

I find it very easy to focus the X-E2 using the Focus Peak Highlight option under Manual Focus Assist. I focus with the f/2.8 lens wide open and stop down to shoot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sojournerphoto]

I've just started with my Pentax K1, Pentax 100 macro and using pixelshift. Only done 1 frame so far, and that just laid on the light box, but was actually reasonably impressive e for a first go. More in next couple of weeks

Mike