I was really only thinking about enlarger lenses here rather than duplication/reproduction lenses optimised for a particular magnification. I’ve tried quite a wide range and I’m sure you have as well and they vary considerably in their suitability for film copying, but then that isn’t what they are designed for. Vlad’s Test Target is very good for assessing whether the compromises that you accept by stopping down are acceptable or not, and the main compromise would be to trade off central sharpness for depth of focus to allow for the curvature of film, and yes that will be a personal decision.
I suspect that lenses like the Sigma 70 & 105 ART have floating elements or lens groups to correct for different magnifications, much like the 55mm Micro-Nikkor from many years earlier otherwise I don’t see how they could be such good performers for film copying. Some of those $xxxx lenses have manually adjustable floating elements to do the same.
The 75mm Apo-Rodagon 2x does seem to perform well over a wider range than the symmetrical 1x version but the 1x is demonstrably better at 1:1 (those comparisons are on another forum). Still that lens is reportedly the same as the fixed aperture 75mm Magnagon in the Imacon ‘virtual drum’ scanners. They have a slightly different task in that these are line scanners and the tri-linear sensor is (from memory) about 43mm long but clearly that has to work over quiite a wide range of magnifications to accommodate 26mm wide 35mm scans at 6300 ppi to 105mm wide 5”x4” scans at 2040 ppi.
my examples were to demonstrate what the phrase “weaker in the corners” actually means in the real world. There are lots of reports from users saying they are quite happy with Schneider lens used for digital “scanning” - but I cannot confirm that.
Afaik Schneider is kind of symmetrical design, so using it in reverse position will change not much and my experience second this.
I am very well aware of design limitation of that lens. Scheider claims the lens was designed for 1:10 ratios, so this were no different from a typical macro lens.
I understand your advertising campaign for Rodagons-D and I might well bite into this apple, the Far East gamble as you say.
Rodenstock says the Rodagons are good for sensors with pixel pitch up to 6 microns, so that would be probably less that required for a modern digital camera. Schneider claims 3 microns, so there would be still a safe margin. If that is important in the praxis, I dont know.
I would be very happy to hear from other Schneider users, if they can confirm my experiences. Maybe my copy is fault or smth.
If you were to join the FB forum “Digitizing film with a Digital Camera” you could see many real world examples for comparison. I think I’m actually trying to steer you away from the Apo-Rodagon D options, I was lucky to get mine from the here in the UK and I didn’t have to pay too much for them, nor did I have to take the risk of buying one from afar. However someone on that FB forum bought one from the Far East and it was fine, even though the external finish had faded a bit.
Your choice may also be dependant on what make of camera you have, the Sigma’s aren’t made for every mount, and not for my Fuji 24MP. I suspect that the Fuji 80mm Macro would have been fine but that is quite expensive even secondhand. Note also that for high MP sensors and 50MP & 100MP Medium Format it is said that other duplicating lenses are more suitable, particular variants of Makro-Symmar for example, because (apparently) the Apo-Rodagons aren’t designed to allow for the extra thickness of glass in the sensor stack.
your input was very valuable for me, all the way Maybe I am a bit weird, but no social media. I am also not so much a tech guy. Just a retried press photographer, trying to figure out the best way to preserve those old pics for the rest of mankind.
So far - and with the resources I have at hand - I can only admit that “scanning” with a camera proved to be much faster and comfortable than using a scanner, but the results are not there yet.
I am set on Canon, so most modern Sigma offerings are not for me, I could probably try to find a used 70mm ART lens. Never had much trust in Sigma QC, though.
Another point, I think that the whole set up is nearly as much important as the lens. I like very much the idea of a lens attached to an enlarger, with the camera hanging down from it. Solves any issues with flatness and the light source.
But this makes the choice of the lens somewhat limited, to specimens with a smaller filter diameter.
At the moment I would say, a lens like the aforementioned Schneider could cut it (for 35mm), but you have to use an APS camera.
I don’t do social media either but it’s true that you have to join FB to access the forum, it’s very good on the technical side though. Richard Karash recently posted a side by side comparison of the Olympus OM 80mm Macro bellows lens and the Sigma 70mm ART though it’s well hidden down in a thread. Both extremely good, the Sigma 70 ART for Canon EF may be your best bet despite your reservations.
Depending on the FL of the lens you use, this can be done more or less easily, also depending on how far you can extend the enlarger’s bellows.
If you can get hold of a ring (like a step-up- or step-down-ring) with protruding threads on both sides, you could use it to adapt your camera lens to the 30mm thread than many enlargers have. Using the lens on the camera prevents cut corners that you might otherwise get.
Hanging the camera from the enlarger will give you something like the valoi easy 35 and easy 120 products. Valois doesn’t sell the tubesets separately though. Nikon’s ES-2 slide copy gear might be usable too.
I’m not understanding this one, doesn’t this force you to use the enlarger lens reversed, i.e. filter thread towards the camera sensor? All my enlarger lenses bar one have 40.5mm. flter threads and the enlarger itself will have an L39 thread. The exception is actually the well regarded 80mm f4 Componon-S which has a 43mm filter thread. Reversing the lens may not or may not have much of an effect for 1:1 copying of 35mm on to full frame but wouldn’t be ideal for 120.
my experience here is limited, but I would think it depends on the lens used, and for (nearly) symmetrical lens designs it should not matter much, reversed or not.
In case of my beloved Schneider lens , I get only slightly different enlargement ratios. Either I have to extend the enlarger bellows more, or to put more extension tubes on the cam.
I use two rings, a step up/step down respectively, a reverse ring and a M42 to Canon EF adapter. Plus, the EF to RF. Sounds complicated, but it is not.
With an enlarger bulb and condensers I get times around 1/1000th of a second @ 8 or so aperture, this is nice.
I was thinking more of the 80mm Componon-S when used for copying 120 where it would be more or less in its recommended range so using it reversed is likely not to be beneficial. There’s a diagram here so broadly symmetrical as you say. Still it is recommended to reverse your 50mm Componon-S lens if used for magnifications greater than 2x so I would suspect that there will be a difference that can be demonstrated. As you’ve already reported your 50mm isn’t that good towards the corners in either orientation but when you have a lens that is good like the 80mm then I think it would be better not to reverse it. Of course it is possible to test this without spending a whole lot of money, particularly if you have Vlad’s Test Target.
I probably shouldn’t be extending the discussion here, I guess this thread is more about showing your setup as the title suggests, but I look forward to hearing how you get on with your enlarger conversion.
No, I felt I was the miscreant here! This is a 2012 test of the that 80mm Olympus Bellows Macro lens against several others from that period on a 21MP 5D MKII (go right to the bottom). The Olympus lens would be difficult to mount to a Canon EF I think but some others there are possibilities, all macro lenses of the film era, some are obviously poor, some are very good.
