I’ve seen references to people using that lens for film copying, Laowa actually seem to have a good reputation in this field so if it wasn’t good I think it would have come up on here. I wonder if you could maybe upload a full resolution file of your best result from Vlad’s Test Target to something like Google Drive or Dropbox and provide a link, just to that file or folder of course, either the RAW file or a high quality jpeg without any adjustments in Lightroom, but the full 6240 x 4160 pixels. Then certainly I would be able to make a meaningful comparison with what I get from my X-T2 and hopfully others might chip in as well. As a guide though, this is interesting from Vlad Srerebryany, the creator of his Test Target of course. He is using a full frame 30MP Canon R5 with two first rate lenses, the Sigma 70mm f2.8 ART and the 75mm Apo-Rodagon D 2x:
You can download his high res filles and compare with your own.
I’m hoping that you won’t need another lens, that it is something else. For the record I used either a Rodagon 80mm f4 enlarger lens, before that a 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor, not much to choose between them, both very good on APS-C. Recently I acquired an 80mm Componon-S f4 enlarger lens and it is very slightly better than either of those with the Test Target but all are very good really. None of those are particularly expensive secondhand but you need a bellows and some adapters for the enlarger lenses, and the relatively old lenses need to be in good condition, no haze, or worse, and of course you still need a solid stand.
Will you only be copying 35mm, or larger formats as well? If not then lens mounted film holders can be a good choice, no alignment problems and much harder to get any problems with camera shake.
Here’s what I’m getting currently with my lens and vlads test target.(let me know if it any issues came up with the file)
That’s what i was hoping for as well when i first started getting everything to scan Laowa was recommended. I’m not sure if it’s exactly the lens causing an issue or my setup I will continue to mess with it this weekend before looking for another lens, unless someone comes up with a solution for my issue.
I plan on scanning my medium format negatives as well, currently trying to get my 35mm negatives to come out as sharp as possible before moving on to my medium format negatives.
The take seems good in respect to alignment and lens capability:
Corners look about equally sharp as seen in Lr at 1000% (35 lp/mm)
The center is a tad sharper (39 lp/mm), but hardly any cause for worries imo
I see some slight tilt, one corner is a bit different. No worries though
Other developers show some lateral chromatic aberrations, but Lr does a good job getting rid of red and green edges. I see no purple fringes, which is sign of an APO design and/or good focus.
that’s intresting i wonder whats causing the lack of sharpness then.
For this scan I used F5.6 I was using F8 but noticed 5.6 was slightly sharper around the edges. Had ISO 80 and I’m using aperture priority which shot it at 1/45.
Here, I (carelessly) brushed a mask onto the building and increased structure and clarity.
Duplicated and inverted the mask and reduced structure in order to soften the background.
Original image taken in 1978 with a Mamiya Sekor 80mm lens on a Mamiya 645 body.
Scan made with a Canon EF 100mm Macro USM on a Canon M6 body.
18 Mpixel (out of 24) usable after crop, loss due to slack and different aspect ratio: 25%.
Prints 17 in high at 300ppi or 20 in high at 240 ppi.
Thanks for uploading the RAW file, I’m a bit baffled now though, why are you not filling the frame with the target? If I crop to the target frame I get around 4154 x 2818 px, so just under 12MP.
I agree that the alignment looks good though, I seem to be able to discern separation in Group -1 Level 4 on all the separate targets across the frame which, as Digitizer says, equates to 39 lp/mm according to Vlad’s guidance. It’s not really a true test of either your setup or the lens though as increasing the magnification to 1:1.5 to fill the frame with the whole test target is significantly more demanding, that lens goes right up to 2x I think.
Of course thank you guys for your help, I tried to fill in the frame further but it starts to cut out parts of my negative.
Yes This lens can reach up to 2x magnification while i haven’t been able to use it, i’ve only been able to reach 0.75 before it starts to cut off my parts of my negative. so would you say the issue is just filling in the frame?
I have been messing with my setup for the last few days, i’m unable to get the Siemens Stars to line up while using focus peaking it’s off just a bit (i uploaded a photo not the best).
OK, I’ve been talking at cross purposes with you then, I thought you were trying to optimise for 35mm which is why you were using the 35mm Vlad’s Test Target. I’m confused because you say that your lab scan was 3:2 aspect ratio, the same as 35mm film of course, What format are you copying, what is the actual size of the transparency, is it 6x9 cms?
The fact that the alignment seems to be OK is a good thing, but obviously you are not getting any results from the corners at all with the strip centred that way though. Group -1 Element 4 is what you should expect from Vlad’s 35mm Test Target at 12MP so everything looks good as far as we can see.
None of this explains why you are getting such a bad scan when compared to your lab scan, personally I don’t think it is anything to do with sharpening, or the lack of it, it shouldn’t be required though sharpening can be fine tuned for your final output.
Another option is to tether the camera to the computer using software that allows you to trigger the camera’s exposure system from the computer. That way nothing touches the camera at all. An example of this is Sony’s Remote app which I use with an a7r4.
Be careful about lenses. All else equal, older lenses that are not corrected for digital sensors will not perform optimally. That is why, for example, Schneider and Rodenstock have both produced purpose-built macro copy lenses corrected for digital.
They make good stuff and that application looks to be very capable, as being a user you would know better than I do. However, what I do like about the Sony software, although equipped with far fewer workflow options, does have a histogram which I find very handy for controlling exposure (by shutter speed) frame by frame as needed.
You are welcome. You know, it could be that what you are doing is workable if you are very careful and really get the leveling just right in two dimensions. I resorted to those more exotic tools after I gave up on spirit levels - they just weren’t doing it for me. The Zig-Align actually uses a principle similar to the “mirror trick”. It works with two mirrors and a hole in one of them that creates the illusion of looking down a tube, and when you see a series of concentric circles with no clipping and distortion you know you’re aligned. Versalab is more expensive, so probably the last one to try, using laser beams. Very clever stuff but comes at a price.
