So, hopefully this is not too specific and someone will be able to advise:
I currently scan negatives (35mm and medium format) using the Nikon Z 105/2.8 macro lens that I’ve gotten before even getting into scanning as a macro/short tele. However, over time I’ve gravitated towards manual focus lenses, gotten some other glass and currently that macro is used exclusively for scanning.
Would it noticeably lower the quality of my scans if I’d replace it with older manual lens, like the Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 (potentially also with the PK-13 extension)? I basically feel like I have money unnecessarily tied-up in that lens that I am underutilising. My hunch is that I won’t notice the difference with Micro-Nikkor, but I’m looking for some confirmation before selling the 105 and getting the 55 on the off chance I’ll realise it’s a big mistake too late.
thanks, long time lurker first time poster I guess
I scan with 24MP (Nikon Zf) and have no plans to significantly increase that. I don’t currently use the Test Target, misplaced it during last move and I use a small mirror to align camera.
Thanks, I only asked because there will be lenses that are good at 24MP on Full Frame but found (a bit) wanting at 61MP, similarly lenses that are very good at 24MP on APS-C at the lesser magnification of 1:1.5 and may not be quite as good on Full Frame at 1:1, I use a 24MP APS-C Fuji myself.
In terms of lenses, I was just wondering how well your lens resolved with Vlad’s test Target, if you’d had one. I have used the 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor for 35mm copying and as a lens for general photography I really like it, I but for 35mm film copying I find it better on APS-C than it is on Full Frame, a fairly common opinion I think. Whether that would show on actual slides as opposed to Vlad’s target is another thing though. You might also consider the 60mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor but I guess you want a manual lens.
This test by Marco Cavina from way back in 2012 shows a variety of manual macro lenses on a 21MP full frame Canon 5D MkII, a real world example showing centre and edge results on an actual slide (scroll right down to the bottom)
@Harry: You’re a minefield of information! Thanks for the link.
That’s a great test of lenses. I recently similarly compared (on slides) my: Micro-Nikkor 55mm f2.8, Sigma Macro 105mm f2.8 DNDG Art, Sony Macro 90mm f2.8 and Scanner Nikon ED (7 Element) 45mm f2.8 on both APS-C and Full-Frame for my own interest. I haven’t posted the results because I used my Sony A7C and A6400, both 24MP. They don’t have the resolution to clearly show all the differences other than chromatic aberration. Was going to wait till I get a Sony A7Riv or v?
That’s a very attractive and well constructed setup you have there Graham, form folllowing function and all that!
Yes, I also use 24MP, APS-C in my case. I know from using Vlad’s target that my 75mm f4.5 Apo-Rodagon D 2x gives me the best results for 35mm copying but I would think I would have difficulty demonstrating that if I presented the results as Marco Cavena has here, in the real world as it were. After that my front runners are 60mm Rodagon & 80mm Componon-S, followed very closely by 80mm Rodagon and 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor. If I went to high MP full frame I’d have to rethink though.
Vlad always emphasises that the limiting factor for resolution is going to be the MP of the sensor and that’s obviously true at the centre, they are all pretty much the same, very good lenses can equal that in the corners as you know.
I used a custom build Kodak Carousel setup for years scanning my slide archive. Used a hand-picked Nikkor Micro 55 2.8 with great results. I did learn to set the focus one third of the way horizontally on the slide so the DOF included the center and edges of the frame. Also found that anything smaller than f9.5 started showing significant diffraction effects. Did 40k scans and very happy with results. Shot with a 24mp D5600 camera. Did detailed tests, subjectively by looking at sharpness and shadow detail, between the D5600 and the D810. The 810 showed a tiny smidgeon of extra detail and could dig just a bit deeper into the shadows. Kodachrome hold a lot of shadow detail. In the end I went with 24MP and re-filed the slides for later scanning of select images. About 3% of the image is hidden behind the slide mount so for those chosen images I would unmount and use a rig with the D810 on a PB6 bellows with the Rodenstock APO 1:1 lens. Either just the film chip or mounted in some pin registered full frame mounts I had left over from multi image slide shows years ago
Then I bought the SlideSnap Strip for my negative archive. The 55 2.8 just couldn’t handle the amount of unpredictable film curl so I went to the 105AF lens and have been super happy with the results.
@Harry Thanks for the compliment on my construction.
@poulides I also focus at the one third mark, a carry-over from my days copying architectural plans for slide presentations with the Micro-Nikkor.
For my recent tests, I focussed separately at the centre and corner targets to avoid any field-plane curvature issues. I found the Micro-Nikkor best at f8 in the full-frame corner.
I also used to prepare multi-screen slide presentations, each screen with two Carousel SAV2000s and an Electrosonic dissolve unit, which I still have!
Nice test! So at 24MP all these lenses were more or less equivalent sharpness wise? What about distortion? BTW I think among these lenses the Sigma 105 DN DG Art had the least amount of blooming and CAs, right?
@dia3olik Right!.. Briefly: I currently use the Sigma. I wouldn’t use the Sony!
Seeing you asked, and most likely many people here use 24MP I now think it’s valid to post my results.
The slide I used was as complex and sharp as I could find, but how sharp can a hand-held photo be? Anyway, it’s a “real-world” example.
So far I’ve only compared the results in RAW at the same magnification in Affinity Photo:
Four lenses, two formats, centre and edge plus evenness of illumination tests! I need a little time to work out a compact format which I will post on a separate thread.
PS. I used a slide rather than a negative as it can be easily viewed/assessed without modification.
Thanks for the feedback! Yeah I’d be very interested in your comparison, please post a link here once you post that separate thread, it would be very appreciated (and I think not only be me he he).
