OK. Then I have tested the Sigma 70mm @Harry. It’s insanely sharp all across the frame even at f. 2.8. And it can even autofocus perfect on the negatives, with no hunting. It’s sharper than I could imagine in my wildest imagination. I will update how the contrast and feeling compares with the Elmarit, light falloff etc. My second Elmarit is ending up on ebay. Thank you so much for the recommendation. Don’t like the feeling of using a modern autofocus lens, but this quality is spectacular. If the Rodagon can compete with this it’s a miracle.
Fantastic, I use Fuji so I can’t use one. Have you seen this test comparing the Sigma 70 with the 75mm Apo-Rodagon 2x (i.e. from our point of view 0.5x in the normal orientation):
Another test on a FB forum (Digitizing film with a digital camera) shows that the 1x is demonstrably better at 1:1 as you might expect, but both very good.
Interesting and authoritative YT from Sigma on the 105mm ART:
Thank you so much, @Harry. You’re both a torchbearer and a trailblazer.
I’m tempted to invest in the Rodagon just to compare it with the 70mm, but I can’t imagine it being sharper than this. The main reason would be to work with a fully manual lens. I don’t like focus-by-wire, though it hasn’t been an issue — just a preference.
Quick update on contrast and falloff: there’s some edge falloff and corner vignetting, but nothing too bothersome. On these images, shot mostly against white backgrounds, the falloff actually helps enhance contrast in the whites. These were some of the major issues with the Flextight scans — blown-out highlights, solarized gray tones, and noisy grain in the shadows compared to the baryta prints.
Sharpness is far better than the Elmarit across the whole frame. The Sigma is sharper in the corners than the Elmarit is mid-frame.
Contrast is also significantly higher with the Sigma, which concerned me at first. I still kind of prefer the warmer… softer feel of the Leitz lens. But after adjusting BlackClip and WhiteClip, dialing down contrast, and brightening it a bit, the Sigma’s sharpness makes the choice clear — I’ll use this lens for the entire book.
Next up: testing for the sharpest aperture, and then I’m good to go.
Huge thanks to everyone who’s contributed to this thread and others in the forum. Your insight has made all the difference. I’ve struggled with digitizing these images for over half a decade, and now, thanks to @nate’s brilliant software and this amazing community, I finally feel like there are no more obstacles in the way.
1 Like
Thanks for the kind words, I just have a good system for recalling other people’s research! You should be able to set up a radial filter in LR to adjust for the fall-off, then save as a setup and apply across batches from the Library module.
1 Like
Yeah. I’ll take a look at that, again thank you, but actually I believe that the kind of falloff the Sigma provides are beneficial in this instance. What a marvel this lens is.
I don’t use Facebook, so a minor detail when you wrote this:
Did you mean that the 2x (the Rodagon?) is demonstrably better? Typing error?
No, the 1x (1:1) is crisper, sections of Vlads Test 35mm Target compared from a Sony A7RIV. But this is what it is designed for and the 2x is still very good in terms of even resolution across the frame. Worth a look if you know someone who uses FB, they would need to join the forum though.
…so if you were to use APS-C for copying 35mm at 1:1.5 then the 2x 75mm Apo-Rodagon would likely be better than the 1x though I’ve not seen that result. Also I don’t think it’s just the fact that with APS-C you are using the centre of the lens, lenses are optimised for a certain range of magnification which is why enlarger lenses are never quite as good as Duplication/Repro lenses like the Apo-Rodagon D for 35mm copying, even on APS-C, not in my experience anyway. They can be very good though, and on actual film (rather than a test target like the VTT) the difference may be very difficult to spot. If you are copying medium format, particularly with APS-C, then you are moving into the optimum range for enlarger lenses.
This is incredibly valuable knowledge to digest and incorporate into further exploration—much appreciated. A lot of what I know comes from my apprenticeship and college years, working with the darkroom and large-format reproduction. While those practices were once a core part of my daily work, it’s been a long time since they were integrated into my routine. Being able to access clear guidelines and benefit from the experience of other engaged and skilled individuals is truly invaluable.
I have both 75mm Apo-Rodagon 'D’s but I only bought the 1x quite recently so haven’t tested it on APS-C, I need to. Mine is actually a a 75mm f4 Apo-Rodagon R, I believe this is what it was called before the 2x was released.
The late Robert O’Toole wasn’t a particular fan of the Apo-Rodagon D lenses, particularly the 2x. If you look in the comments of the photomacrography 0.66x test he makes various points about them. He did test the 1x back in 2017, the Sigma 70 is the predecesor to the one that you have:
Please consider the following when you use full frame lenses with APS-C sensors.
Example: 24 Mpixel sensor on both cameras (4000 x 6000 pixels)
- The FF sensor has 6 micrometer pixel spacing
- APS-C has 4 micrometer pixel spacing
FF lenses are often optimised for FF sensors which means that they needn’t resolve that high. You really need a very good FF lens in combination with APS-C.
This is also new to me @Digitizer.
But I have used Hasselblad medium format lenses on the Sony A7RII, and realised this fact then, so it makes sense. But didn’t know the same problem applied with full 35 vs super35.
Explains why my Kern Paillard Yvar 36mm f/2.8 is so extremely sharp.
I obviously understand the principle of pixel pitch, that’s why I’m using a Sony A7s, because it renders a lot of vintage lenses much better than the Sony A7RII. Anyway. I think I’m done with experimenting. The Sigma 70mm looks perfect in full frame 1:1.
Interesting thread! Don’t have time at the moment to read all the comments but noticed the skepticism on the advantages of monochrome sensors for B&W: Just look at some reviews on Leica Monochom cameras. The detail with respect to resolution is simply jaw dropping. Don’t know about dynamic range differences though. Just my quick thoughts.
1 Like
Loved reading this thread. Thanks to everyone who deeply contributed. Makes me desire a monochrome sensor to digitize the huge wave of 35mm monochrome images I am about to be buried under!
1 Like
I would get the Pentax K-III Monochrome with the PENTAX-D FA 100mm @SSelvidge.
Highly recommended, @SSelvidge. However, if you’re converting a sensor, I’d suggest going with an APS-C format—it’ll save you a lot of hassle. I’ve compared the Sigma 70mm Macro on APS-C against full-frame, and I couldn’t see any noticeable difference between the approximately 42MP full-frame reproduction and the 18MP APS-C. That lens delivers remarkably uniform sharpness across the frame in both cases, but the increase in resolution doesn’t really make a difference. If you go for an APS-C monochrome sensor you have a wider choice in lenses. I would surely love to use a lens which doesn’t focus by wire.
The K3 mkIII mono looks great and all but I am deep into camera gear already, S1r (scanning) and R5 (for photography work). I will (briefly) look into it though…
As for lenses, I am fortunate and locked in lens wise: Sigma 70 art, Sigma 150mm DG DN OS (lesser known, really solid), and a Scanner Nikkor from a coolscan 8000. Can mount them all to EF or L mounts (most mirrorless).
Really though I want to spend my extra cash on film and converting a camera to infrared or full spectrum at this point for creative endeavors. But wow would a monochrome sensor be great for scanning B&W and RGB frames for color. All interesting what is available to us all these days.
Yeah. It’s real fun to take ownership over one’s own setup.
I am testing the Leitz Focomat 50 f. 4,5 against the Sigma 70mm Art at the moment.
Weird to compare these, since the Focomat is at least one fifth of the size and one fifth of the weight, but I have to say that though the 70mm has contrast and sharpness which I have hard to imagine can be bested by anything, the setup with the Focomat really brings me back to my teenage years when I was practically living in the darkroom. So maybe I have to continue feeding my new addiction with the Rodagon if the Focomat is slightly inferior.. Leitz lenses has a smoothness in their microcontrast which is tempting to cling onto though. Photography is truly an art of compromises.
There is a purity to bringing the monochrome negative onto a monochrome sensor.
A feeling of non intervention so to say, no need for manipulation. The sharpness and contrast is so immensely good I don’t need to touch the image in post. It’s just done.
It looks like a pristine print from the darkroom, which is not something I have ever been able to say about a scan from neither the Flextight or Nikon Coolscan back in the days.