hey! new user here looking to start scanning w/ my Fuji X-T20 and would love some tips on an appropriate lens. keep seeing alot about Nikkor 60/2.8… so look for one of those & an adapter? is 60mm the standard focal length for this stuff?- I need it to scan 35mm & 120mm/6x6. ohh and money is a factor especially now so looking for the best i can get for the least money. cheers
I’m also in the same situation after coming to realise that my Epson v550 flatbed scanner doesn’t cut the cake. I’m a Fujifilm XT3 shooter so will be planning on using that for digitising my negs. I’ve heard that the XF80 macro is a great lens for the job but probably over budget (it definitely is over mine) for you. How about the XF60 macro? I’ve heard its quite good but it won’t give you 1:1 macro so you will be cropping your frame for 35mm negs, probably still going to better quality than a flatbed though… I’ll watch this space to see what others suggest.
Done some more research into macro lenses for Fuji and this looks quite promising https://www.adorama.com/sart6028fx.html
Reviews have been good so far and price is also cheap in comparison to the native Fuji macro lens options.
hi drew! yeh was put onto that via another forum, looks great but if i can get away w/ spending less i’d be happy. also was told to look at anything around 55mm-60mm… so checking older lenses now (rokkor, nikkor, canon FD etc).
The Nikkor lenses seem very popular for copy work and you don’t need 1:1 so that opens you up to many macro lens options. Found this in another forum but thought it was useful…
The “6x7” negative size is actually 56 x 67mm.
The Fuji “APS-C” sensor size is 23.6 x 15.6 mm.
So to capture the full “6x7” frame (without cropping it to 3:2 ratio), you need a magnification ratio = 1:(67/15.6) = 1:4.3
If you instead wish to capture a 3:2 aspect ratio crop of the original negative, you need a magnification ratio = 1:(56/23.6) = 1:2.4
In either case, a 1:2 “macro” lens such as Fuji’s XF60/2.4 provides MORE THAN ENOUGH magnification.
awesome info! i actually just picked up a Micro Nikkor 55/3.5 which does 1:2 (w/ an extension ring) and was perfect for my budget atm @AUD$80… so will use that for now and see how i go. will keep you posted!!
I suspect we are all posting on other forums. For the record, for other readers, here’s a short page I created about using the 55mm Micro-Nikkors for camera-scanning.
I use a Micro Nikkor 60mm AF D with a standard adapter on my X-T3. The lens is super sharp and well-built. It was under $200 as well.
So far its been amazing. Vignetting tests have been near perfect at f8 and f11, no distortion, and is easy to focus. I find 60mm (90 on the fuji) is a good working distance as well.
The only issue is using the Fuji system is with Lightroom, as the ‘wormy’ effect really shows up with grainy film and looks light years better by using “enhance details”. It adds a lot of time and makes for huge file sizes but is worth it for certain files, and still looks better than Capture One or other third party demosaicing softwares I’ve tried.
Just an FYI about Fuji.
There is also the Zeiss Touit 50/2.8 which has both AF and goes 1:1 should tou need it. More expensive than the Micro Nikkor 55/2.8 but cheaper than the fuji 80/2.8 for sure.
I use an adapted Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro Macro lens (Nikon F-mount) on my Fuji X-H1 for digitizing my negatives. I have found the “enhance details” feature to help somewhat with the Fuji Worms issue, but it does take a long time and it does increase file size and number of files. I don’t use it for every roll.
@Richard1Karash , the link does not show the page. Maybe we’d need to be forum menbers to see it?
If so, can you attach the original text?
I use an X-T2 but with Iridient X-Transformer which I can recommend, it doesn’t seem to be very hard on the processor or graphics card and it’s possible to customise it via a number of different settings. That said I use it mainly for real life subjects, foliage, fields, distant woods etc. rather than slide copying. You can try it out for free, it just watermarks the result.
On another forum someone used an X-A5 with the Bayer sensor (so not X-Trans) in preference to his X-T2, he got better results that way. I’ve been playing on the DPReview Studio Comparison and it does well there as well for fine detail. I haven’t felt like buying one just for slide copying, they are nowhere near as common as X-T2 etc. and aren’t as well built, but if you have access to one it might be worth experimenting.
This is obviously highlighting the new 40MP APS-C sensor but to those who’ve not used it you can compare any of the very large list of cameras this way. For what it’s worth I didn’t think the 40 MP sensor resolved much more detail, on this comparison at any rate.
Sorry, that site has changed, making old links fail. My post was:
- For 35mm to an APS body, set the lens near closest focus and add 8mm or more extension so that the film image fills the frame. Nikon PK-11, any version will do. (Using a short tube vs longer will help a bit for the 55 f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor because it has Nikon’s “Close Range Correction.” For the 55 f/3.5, any tube up to 27.5mm will do.)
- For 35mm to a FF body, set lens at closest focus and add 27.5mm extension. Nikon PK-13 or M tube, any version will do.
- For 120 or larger to any digital body, just mount the lens on adapter and focus.
For the original post with photos: Camera-Scan Basic Questions - Ask & Answer! - Rangefinderforum.com
Thanks for that information regarding how to make sure that the floating elements on the 2.8 are in the right position when using extension tubes, especially with respect to APS-C when you obviously have more options regarding whether to use tubes or extend the lens.
I read elsewhere that enthusiasts for these two lenses mischievously refer to the 2.8 version as having ‘Long Range Correction’, the suggestion was that the 3.5 is optimised for close range and the floatiing elements on the 2.8 are to give excellent results at normal subject distances, and that both perform the same at close range (provided the 2.8 is extended). Is there any truth in that do you think?
Actually it’s not obvious what I mean at all. I mean that if you’ve been using the Micro-Nikkor for 1:1 on full frame, as I was, then you will have been using the PK-13 27.5mm extension tube. Changing to APS-C the temptation would be to continue to use that tube and not extend the lens so much (I know, that’s what I did more or less).
Harry, there’s close up and really close up. My interest is in performance at 1x or near-1x for camera-scanning of 35mm material. For this, the 55 f/3.5 while fine in the center and while it will produce a useable image, the f/2.8 lens is far better in the corners. I have three of each, and the result below is repeatable.
Also, if you are using a PK-13 with your f/2.8 and switching to APS, go ahead and keep using it. The recommendation to use a shorter extension tube is mostly theory and will be very hard to see difference in real world use.
Thanks, much appreciated, it’s also meant that I’ve rediscovered your excellent articles/threads on Rangefinder Forum, particularly “What is the best lens for 1x Camera-Scan?” and " How Great a Lens do we Need for Camera-Scanning?". Well worth a read by anyone interested in this subject.
…and there’s quite a big difference isn’t there? Those guys were wrong.
Yes, I think “those guys” were wrong about the f/3.5 vs f/2.8
The 3.5 lens was an important innovation when new, but I think new lenses are better.