Hi all, question about this lens.
I just started scanning for the first time and I purchased this lens after many recommendations because of it’s 1:1 replication capabilities.
On normal macro shots on AF the tube will fully extend. When scanning, the tube will not expand. I’m under the impression that the 1:1 replication only happens when the tube is extended. Is this true?
I haven’t been able to MF with this lens and scanning either.
Any idea?
Hi @Cacti, welcome to the forum. I have the manual AI version of this lens which needs a 27.5 mm extension tube to go to 1:1 but the rather uncommon AF version which you presumably have doesn’t need this. You are correct in thinking that it needs to be fully extended to go to 1:1 but what actually happens when you try to focus it manually, it should just extend through its full range? Not relevant to the problem but is this on a full frame camera?
Thank you! For whatever reason I cannot focus it manually. Though, the lens is as mint as can be, I don’t think it’s broken.
In AF mode, the tube extends fully when shooting normal macro. My hand for example. I cannot however get it to extend and shoot macro on the negs.
Yep, I’m on a D800, so full frame.
Do you mean it just comes to a stop when you try and wind it out manually? The 60mm AF version is quite widely used for film copying and must work in the same way so hopefully someone with one of those will reply. Obviously it needs to come out even further than it does when you are focused on your hand. Are you switching it to the ‘dot’ position for manual focusing?
So the problem seems to be that I can focus it manually with the tube fully out, but in order to do that I have to get so close to the negative that it crops a lot of the photo out.
It’s not adding up really. That lens focuses to 1:1 when fully extended so that means that at its maximum extension it can focus sharply on an area the same size as your D800 sensor, and nothing smaller than that. However that’s exactly what you need for a 35mm film frame. Are you using a copy stand?
Sorry, should have mentioned I’m scanning 120 
OK, in that case you’re just extending it too much, quite a lot too much. The desired magnification for single shot medium format is 24/56, 0.43x, clearly if you want to include some rebate then it’s slightly less than that. Just play around with it until you get the framing that you want, it is easier from a fixed position like a copy stand where you can incrementally adjust the distance between the lens and the film. If you are using manual focus then it is far easier to focus if you can tape the lens at the desired magnification and then move the camera and lens as a unit. Hopefully you have a setup where you can check that the alignment is correct, with a mirror or possibly a level, and that it won’t change in use. That lens should be excellent for 120 copying.
I don’t understand why AF doesn’t work though.
Thanks. Is it still 1:1 if the tube isn’t extended though?
Well, I’m using 1:1 as the magnification, so same size on the film as it will be on your sensor, that’s how Nikon use it in fact, that’s the maximum magnification of that lens. But with 120 you are reducing the size of the image on film (56mm across the film, so 56x60, 56x67 or 56x82 for 6x6, 6x7 & 6x9) to fit on your 36mm x 24mm sensor. This means that the magnification is much less, 0.43x as I’ve said, or 1:2.3.
You don’t need to get hung up on the magnification, just make sure that you get the framing that you want, but that lens will go to 1:1 so you can use it to copy 35mm as well, and it’s very good for that also.
Oh man, thanks so much for your help Harry!
Capturing 120 film negatives also implies an inherent loss of sensor area due to aspect ratio mismatch - except for 6x9 which corresponds to the FF 2 x 3 (4 x 6, 6 x 9 etc.) aspect ratio - or if you stitch captures.
Inherent loss:
Including some of the film base reduces the usable number of pixels even further. With careful framing, you’ll get less than 16 Mpixels out of a 24 Mpixel sensor when scanning 6x6 negatives.
4.5 x 6 negatives are special because they are portrait oriented on film, even when the photo was taken in landscape orientation. Without rotating the film or camera, a scan will loose 50% of available pixels and look like this:
That’s a bummer about 645 format, I was thinking about getting a 645 camera.
I currently have a 6x9. Thanks for the info.
No problem, you simply rotate the film strip or the rig.
Check out the setups shown in here:
Try an l-bracket. They exist for almost any camera and at any price.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/camera-plates-l-brackets/ci/38006?sort=PRICE_LOW_TO_HIGH&filters=fct_qr-plate-type_6420%3Al-bracket-plates
That seems to relate to 645 in the opposite orientation to the camera.
I’m curious, though. It seems that be that pixel count is your aim. I wouldn’t follow that path (I’m speaking of someone who was chasing that count all the way through using ADOX CSM 20 on 4x5 with high-resolving lenses to see what pixel count/resolution I could achieve).
These twin aims are compromised at the first step to digitisng. Publication compromises it further.
You should ignore that completely if you are considering a 645. I chose medium format for the images, not for the pixels. There’s no need to count the trees in the forest when it is the forest you are photographng. 645 has opened up for me a different set of options in terms of resolving power of MF lenses, and the other related potentials in the format. These don’t vanish because somewhere down the road you will be digitising the image.
I’d very respectfully suggest that you are allowing the workflow far too big a voice in your consideration - which is something which should really only apply in a strictlly professional setting. Unless I was being paid to produce a stated quantity of something at a specific quality and on a schedule, I would not allow technical restrictions in a part of the process to dictate choices which essentially have an element of the aesthetic to them. That, or I would provide the service with the limitations stated clearly up front. There is no point in taking personal blame for something which the industry asn’t addressed properly since the last significant improvements in scanning technology.
For me, scanning produces a copy. Nothing more. That introduces necessary and unavoidable compromise, given that we are essentially resorting to an analogue solution to bridge the analogue/digital divide.
I’d suggest in a heartbeat that you go for a 645, enjoying the greater number of exposures per roll, and - most importantly - relishing the images you take in that format.The workfow may compromise how a digital ausience sees your work, but I wouldn’t let that govern your own personal experience. No way.
We’re getting off-topic here…
645 format cameras come in several configurations. Mamiya 645 (I have one of these from when it was introduced) and others transport films vertically. This makes them well suited for landscapes. Cameras like the Bronica RF645 and Fuji GS645 transport films horizontally, which makes them better suited for portraits.
@Cacti Whatever your camera will be, its negatives can be scanned (copied) with the lens you’re considering. And your D800 should get you captures good for printing large enough for normal use. And if you need bigger prints, you can have the original negatives enlarged by a lab.
Since we have strayed off topic, if you are considering 645 then I’d consider 6x6 also, especially if you might be using a tripod. Yes, you only get 12 frames instead of 15 (16 on a Hasselblad).
