Great comparison, thank you! I still have an Apo Rodagon 50mm/2.8 from my analog days that should be a bit better than the standard 50mm with 6 lenses.
Thank you so much for making this video. Maybe you feel differently, but I find scanning to be the most boring and tedious process of shooting film. So thank you for saving me a lot of time and money. I also haven't really found much information online in comparing the lens options for scanning film. Which is disappointing because it is certainly one of the most expensive purchases when beginning to scan film at home. I would be very interested to see how one of the 1:2 50mm macro lenses that were common in the 70's and 80's, with an extension tube to make it 1:1, would compare to your macro lens or enlarging lens set-up. Those 1:2 macro lenses can still be found for somewhat reasonable prices. But I know this kind of testing is a very tedious process, so I'll just assume it's probably somewhat close in image quality to your macro lens.
Thank you very much! I've been thinking about getting a DSLR scan setup for a while now. Camera / stand etc. was clear to me only never which lens I should use. The video helps me here immensely. Please keep up the good work :)
Great video! I really like your slow methodical approach to optimize methods I already used for a long time but never checked alternatives... (just like with washing, I'd already found the best way by myself😋). My favorite one for camera scanning now is an old Macro-Takumar 50mm screw mount lens that beat every other macro I tested it against (Micro-Nikkor, Macro Elmarit, Componon-S, Macro Planar etc.). The older manual macros 70s/80s are very good at this task, they were MADE for copy work in an era before scanners existed ! 🤯 Doing copy reproductions was a 70s pro's bread and butter job in a lot of cases !
One of the best additions I have on my dedicated digitizing setup is a monitor. I just bought a cheap hdmi cable and had a old monitor gathering dust. It's awesome for peak in zooming to focus and makes framing easy. I have a film holder that doesn't hold still so keeping an eye on that is crucial.
I just watched your comparison video again and am going to dig out my 2 enlarging lenses and will buy the Helicoid Lens Mount. I just recently purchased a used Sigma 105mm f2.8 D EX macro lens along with the 35mm and 120 VLADS Test Targets so I should be all set. I plan to test both setups at f8 & f11 to see which is the sharpest. I figure since I'm spending a lot of time scanning, I will use the sharpest setup on all my negatives. Thanks for the comparison.
Olympus em5ii {$250) & Canon nFD 50mm ($50) + a cheap adapter = a permanently- mounted, flippy-screen, wifi contrlled, 4:3, 64mpx, for a ~$300 scanning beast. Added bonus, the smaller sensor provides better relative DoF and uses the central portion of the lens:) Interesting about the enlarging lens. You can also adapt the scanning lens from old broken film scanners. Another great video sir!
How is that set up working for you? I should renew my m43 body eventually (EM5 mk I) and I have been procrastinating camera scanning untill I get a higher res/pixel shift body. Someone at an auction site claimed they were having issues with the pixel shift shots when inverted (banding IIRC).
awesome vid! I use El Nikkor and Rodenstock enlarging lenses on my Durst Color Copy setup - works a treat, so good to see your vid validate my experience.
My suggestion overall with lenses on 35mm sensors and especially on crop sized sensors is to not exceed the f8 apparture. In 35mm once you go lower than f8 diffraction distortion usually tend to take place. Diffraction is a distortion that usually starts kicking in at f11 and lower in 35mm and in larger formats f16 and lower (sometimes in medium format it exist in f22, because the lenses were bigger the diffraction was much less notable and much less critical). Diffraction is also the reason in small appartures we get star shaped lights instead of circular. It will flatten the colours and it will soften in a weird way the edges. For example in 10:29 I think there is slight diffraction distortion in the centre circle compared to the f2.8 sample and the whites are grayer than in f2.8. Simillarly in 16:35 the whites are getting much grayer in the f11 case and it doesn't seem as sharp as it could get. Now of course it might be the resolution or the lens itself, but I do think some minor diffraction distortion took place in these samples. F8 in general is suggested regardless.
Even 4 element enlarging lenses might work quite well stopped down, they are underrated! The modified Cooke Triplet (Tessar) type lenses are normally very well corrected for distortion, flatness of field doesn't matter at F8 or F11. A "nifty fifty" could be used in reverse for scanning 35 mm negatives to greatly improve results, but it might not work with larger formats (not on a DSLR, but perhaps on a mirrorless body). And then you need all the additional items (helicoid adapter, reversal adapter, extension tubes) … easier to just buy a good macro lens, because you know what you get (with everything else it is like throwing dice).
Thanks for doing this ! Just getting back to film alongside digital, I decided to go the DSLR scan route over a film scanner for the 35mm I'll shoot.. I 'm amazed to see you using an enlarger stand for a mount - I just bought an enlarger column and mount last week. I * hope * to use the Sigma 150mm macro in the setup ; it's a sharp heavy beast of a lens though it is fandamntastic for macro shooting insects. At present I'm trying to pick what might be a better adjustability setup instead of a ballhead.
Very helpful! I've been looking for someone to explain why extension tubes were giving me terrible quality with my Sony lenses when scanning (commonly called) 35mm negatives. I was getting edge distortion that wasn't just a focus issue. I just ordered a dedicated macro lens/adapter setup-can't wait to try it. I would just add that for straight copy work, that enlarging lens gives you the most bang for your buck, but of course a macro lens can be used for regular photography, too, so it might make more sense for some.
Thank you for making this video, I am just about to start my journey in black and white film photography. As it happens I have an old enlarger of which the transformer packed in. My initial intention was to scan the negatives using the enlarger lenses. It came with the f2.8 50mm component s and a nikon el-nikor 80mm f5.6. Although I did consider the helicoid I opted for a macro bellows, but hopefully a decent one which I am waiting for arrival. Second hand off ebay, but not made out of paper like the new ones you see advertised. So I am really glad I saw this comparison to confirm my thinking was on the right track. I was also hoping to adapt the enlarger stand to support it all. If the bellows don't turn out to be a good option I will look at the helicoid. But of course then I thought why not try some darkroom work. I came across what is hopefully a much better enlarger than the one I had. This one is the Durst DA900 with the CLS 201 colour head. With this and the supplied 66 automotive and 69 automotive you can turn from a condenser type enlarger to diffusion. Everything seems to work fine. Complete with rodenstock rodegon 50 and 80mm lenses both f5.6. However the YMC only goes to 60 max. Have you any idea how to translate these for ilford vc papers. There data sheets are for Durst 170 and 130 max. Keep on making great video.
I have been scanning my old negatives using a 50mm prime lens with extension tubes. Most of the photos are for screen viewing, but I want to print some of them to hang on the walls. I think I will re-scan those with an enlarger lens setup.
The Sigma 105mm Macro is by far the best lens I've tested in terms of sharpness, especially edge sharpness. The distortion leaves a bit to be desired, but the correction profile for it is perfect and doesn't seem to impact the edge sharpness. I know this video is more about frugality, but if you can swing $600, it is the best tool for the job.
Ooo never realized enlarger lenses were so easy to adapt and use for this purpose. I've ordered two for my eventual darkroom so maybe I'll try them out for this someday. In my scan setup I use the Laowa Macro 100 f/2.8 which is available in many mounts (could go F to Minolta in your case) and its a really crisp lens at a decent price even new with the biggest drawback being that the focus throw is hot trash so focusing is anxiety inducing but not so bad. An actual advantage is it does 2:1 even so I get nice detail even when scanning smaller stuff like half frame. I was surprised you went down to f/11. I'd heard diffraction hits sooner so I generally just go to 5.6. Maybe I should check someday if it worsens further on or gets better. Stray unasked for tip: I'm a fan of stitching medium format negatives. I usually take a 6cm by 4cm image then stitch in the horizontal direction (so two images for 6x6 and 3 for 6x9). Gets a lot more resolution I find and is only slightly more hassle. Great video as always!
I don’t stitch because I’m just making a digital copy for online posting. I don’t have the intent of printing digitally where all the detail is needed. If I were, stitching would be the way to go. For diffraction, I made a video a few months ago about that topic. The sharpest stop for my lens was f/11, just barely beating f/8 in the corners. Smaller stops induced diffraction that was barely noticeable at f/16, definitely noticeable at f/22
I'd use a astrograph with extension tubes myself, their whole point is to not have distortions or aberrations. Mainly good if you already have one otherwise a good film scanner can be had for the same budget.
a great series, thank you. People tested the 50mm Componon S and found that it's not perfect at 1:1 magnification but it does start to shine once you go to bigger negatives, "enlarging" not just copying (from the lens point of view), I think you might get even better results with large format neg, but then you would be digitising LF with only 24mp. When you get to the lighting can you please also look at LED vs incandescent and white light vs filtered (to get rid of some of the orange mask optically)(colour enlarging head style) Thanks again
What would you do with your extra megapixels? 24MP is more than you will ever use if you are not printing, consider 4k is pretty much the max display resolution people have.. and thats 8MP. And for prints no digital repro will be enough, as you need much larger files.
Hello Stefan! Are there links to the tests on large format with the 50mm Componon S lens, which you mention? I'm looking to make digital "contact sheets," so sounds like the Componon S lens might be optimal :) Also wondering if those tests would mention sort of adapter(s) would be necessary for getting the wider views - wider than copying single 35mm/120 frame in the above video. I imagine the helicoid mentioned by the Naked Photographer might have too much magnification/narrow angle of view to cover an 8x10+ size area.
I've been using the Nikkor 55mm 2.8 ai-s macro + Nikon PB-6 bellows + Nikon PS-6 slide copying adapter. It works great but it's 35mm film only. I think if you don't need to scan medium format, this set up is more cost effective than purchasing all the stuff from Valoi or Negative supply. I couldn't ask for better scans. Just make sure you have a decent light source.
Neat, I just purchased these bellows and have been using it for macro. Stellar performance. Though I need to get the proper macro lens to use them for 35mm scanning.
@@blackdiamondgreg I upgraded the lens to a Schneider Compnon-s 50mm f2.8 enlarger lens. Center sharpness is the same compared to the Nikkor but the edges are sharper because of the flat field nature of enlarger lenses. And those are pretty cheap too. I just had to buy a 39-42 adapter and a M42 to Nikon-F to make it work.
Very cool video! Though I think I'll stick to my flatbed for images I'm just putting on the internet. Luckily it's still going strong, and for the most part it's less work and produces good enough results.
I think this method is super complicated, cause it very dependable on various factors. But in a same time you can get a nice (used) scanner for around $100 with stable and much better quality. And with scanner you'll go plug'n'play and no need to giggle around that construction.
I looked at enlarging lenses when setting up my camera scanning rig, and yes, they're nice, but for me, the primary drawback was manual focus. Obtaining critical focus was easy enough, but for my particular workflow, took too long. I ended up going with the Sigma 70mm ART macro lens (the new one). I've had that lens on a number of bodies, the current one being a Canon EOS R5, and for 35mm... man... crispy. It's not a cheap lens, but boy does it ever bring the optical performance, and perfect reliable focus is as simple and fast as simply engaging the camera's focus system, which for Canon dual pixel AF bodies, is crazy good AF.
I would say it depends on if you change formats a lot. If someone is only shooting and scanning one format, the longer set up time of the enlarging lens is just a one time thing. Since I am just doing things quickly for the web on occasion, the macro lens is faster and easier.
@@TheNakedPhotographer Very true. This was for my processing lab, and I scan everything from 110 up to 120 in 6x9 and my rig, and many hundreds of rolls a month, so for me, it just didn't make sense to use an enlarging lens, but that's just me. Everybody will have their own unique situation, and this video is a really good rundown of what can be done.
Many thanks for the detailed comparisons, Mr. N. Photographer! Wondering if you’ve used the Componon S lens for copying 8x10s or "contact sheets." Would the helicoid you mentioned give too much magnification/narrow angle of view? Have you made 8x10/contact sheet-size scans with the Schneider using a full frame camera, and if so, what sort of adapter(s) would you use?… same as mentioned for the 1:1 scans, or something else?
Awesome video! I have a question regarding your setup. Do you think that there is any side effect from the ambient light coming into the slide, given that it is mounted below what appears to be a reflective surface? I have seen similar DSLR scanners that use a bellows to block any side light. Looking at the resulting scans I saw no visible effect, but I'm curious if you thought about it.
Hello, Is there a reason you dont mount a Helicoid M39 to Sony for the enlarger lens? did you, for 135, still have to place the extension tubes ect in combination with the enlarger lens requirements?
It depends on the focal length of the lens and how close you are to the subject. In this case I was using a 50mm lens and focused at a 1:1 ratio. That means I needed 100mm of extension, which was more than my helical could provide alone. A different helical may not be as short as mine and be fine directly between lens and camera.
The optical performance of a modern macro lens (floating elements, multicoating) is usually optimized for a reproduction ratio around 1:2. A 50mm enlarging lens like used here is optimized for around 1:10, so the macro lens should be a bit better here. IMO the issues relating to inadequate alignment, lack of rigid support, variable flatness in the subject negative, etc., will offset such lens differences on a shot by shot basis.
Optimized distance or not, in practice the performance in sharpness was identical with a slight increase in contrast using the enlarging lens, giving it the edge for me.
I've been looking at adapting this exact lens! I've heard that with camera scanning you want to go with a lens with a longer focal length if possible - have you found the fact it's a 50mm an issue at all? There's another sigma macro that is 70mm but it's not quite as cheap
@@ellyrion8173 If it is for digitizing negatives the focal length does not matter much. As you increase focal length the distance from subject to lens also increases thereby requiring a larger stand.
@@michaelrasmussen3347 Yeah that's what I was thinking - I'm guessing that belief must stem from older wider angle lenses having greater distortion at the sides. How have you found the sharpness at the edges when scanning with the 50mm sigma? It's £75 used for the 50mm EX DG and around £140 for the 70mm EX DG here in the UK - I've seen tests with the 70mm on silicone wafers that look great so if the 50mm is close to that sharpness at the edges I'll save some money and go for it! Thanks
I just found a 50 mm expander lens on FB Marketplace for 10 bucks. Planning to use a Nikon 7200 for my scanning camera. What type of adapter do I need to start hunting for? Will I need expansion tubes?
The results coincide with mine. I have, because I have both a Rodenstock APO Rodagon 2.8/50 and the Minolta AF 2.8/50 Macro, already digitised with both options. Depending on which lens was free at the time. But even my old Polish 50mm enlarger lenses come very close to the quality of the two good options. Trying it with a 50mm normal lens is not really worth it. Here in Germany you can get the Minolta AF 2.8/50 macro from 85 -150€. So with Rodagon, Helicoid and extension rings or the macro you get good results at about the same price.
Very helpful video, I'm DSLR scanning my own film with a Pansonic G9 plus a Laowa 50mm macro lens and have got decent results with both 135 and 120 films. The video looks abot choppy though, maybe a shutter speed issue?
Do you find the high res mode helps with scanning? I was watching a video and apparently the results are great, not necessarily because of the high megapixels but because of reduction of the Bayer filter effects like aliasing and moire, poor grain definition..
@@alanstoss The high-res mode gives more resolution that's for sure as well as offering the benifits you mentioned. From my own experience, a straight 20MP shot cannot resolve what medium format film is capable of and gives mediocore results for 135 film so I use HI-res mode exclusively for scanning and down sample in post.
I have a Nikon scanning adapter I use with my Z5 and 60mm micro. The question in my mind is why am I shooting film and using the results of a digital camera to record display the image? Makes sense if someone wants to digitize old shots but I am thinking why am I not using the digital camera to photography in the first place? Just thinking out loud I guess but I will stick to my scanners for film digitalization.
That’s a personal choice you will have to make. I shoot film and print in the darkroom, but sometimes I need to digitize an image to show online or email to a gallery. And of course, I have tons of shots just for this channel that will never go beyond the video, like my comparisons and reviews.
I didn’t include it in the video, but I tested a 100mm Componon-S too. The results were the same but the camera had to be much higher and the extension from camera to lens was much greater. Remember, 1:1 means a lens is extended twice it’s focal length, so the 100mm lens has to be 200mm from the sensor for the 35mm frame, and is typically the same distance from the subject, so the camera was around 400mm above the film.
I use the Laowa 100mm 2x APO macro. It's pretty sharp and not that expensive. I also have a 50mm Componon S, but no adapter and therefore never tried it.
The further the camera is from the subject (in this case that would be your negatives), the closer the lens must be to the camera sensor. That means you need to have fewer spacers or extensions on your enlarger lens adapter.
There are no other options than a good macro lens. Any other lenses are a waste of time. Unless, after scanning, you want to find out that you wasted your time because the scanned frames are sharp only in the center of the frame and soft at the edges. Only macro lenses are free from almost all optical defects that other lenses are full of.
Setups like these you have really hard time aligning everything, instead of a stance.. use something you can attach to your lens threads that stands on the film holder... sadly its just poor design in the film holder overall. Like you can see on your photos, that the camera is misaligned to the film. At 1:1 the tolerances are really small. The more its misaligned, the more you will stop down your lenses to compensate for it and the more you lose for diffraction. As at 1:1 your actual fstop is much smaller than what the number says. F/11 would be f/22 in reality. So f/11 is way too much for 1:1.
@@MrFreakwent Pretty good on a high contrast target does not really translate that well. And considering how cumbersome that kind of setup is, the time you spend aligning the camera and film holder every time. I dont really get it, its just a really bad design. You could do that so much more simpler and better, and it would take up much less room. But then again, i dont think quality is what people seek from these setups. Nor that you can even really even get out of these. Guess this is more hobbyist stuff. My main issue with these setups is just that when a bad design like this enters the market, and its the promoted with huge effort and becomes a "thing" so everyone will just follow it. While it makes zero sense.
For the first two minutes you talked just fine without any music in the background. Why was it necessary to start talking over music from that point on? Why do you RUclipsrs think that is such a great thing to do?
![Twenty One Pilots - The Line (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XCz7WUotXs8/mqdefault.jpg)
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Great comparison, thank you! I still have an Apo Rodagon 50mm/2.8 from my analog days that should be a bit better than the standard 50mm with 6 lenses.
Fantastic. Thank you! I was groaning to myself about having to buy a 500$ lens JUST to scan my negs.
I have Schneider enlarger lenses!
Thank you so much for making this video. Maybe you feel differently, but I find scanning to be the most boring and tedious process of shooting film. So thank you for saving me a lot of time and money. I also haven't really found much information online in comparing the lens options for scanning film. Which is disappointing because it is certainly one of the most expensive purchases when beginning to scan film at home.
I would be very interested to see how one of the 1:2 50mm macro lenses that were common in the 70's and 80's, with an extension tube to make it 1:1, would compare to your macro lens or enlarging lens set-up. Those 1:2 macro lenses can still be found for somewhat reasonable prices. But I know this kind of testing is a very tedious process, so I'll just assume it's probably somewhat close in image quality to your macro lens.
Thank you very much!
I've been thinking about getting a DSLR scan setup for a while now. Camera / stand etc. was clear to me only never which lens I should use. The video helps me here immensely.
Please keep up the good work :)
Great video! I really like your slow methodical approach to optimize methods I already used for a long time but never checked alternatives... (just like with washing, I'd already found the best way by myself😋).
My favorite one for camera scanning now is an old Macro-Takumar 50mm screw mount lens that beat every other macro I tested it against (Micro-Nikkor, Macro Elmarit, Componon-S, Macro Planar etc.). The older manual macros 70s/80s are very good at this task, they were MADE for copy work in an era before scanners existed ! 🤯 Doing copy reproductions was a 70s pro's bread and butter job in a lot of cases !
One of the best additions I have on my dedicated digitizing setup is a monitor. I just bought a cheap hdmi cable and had a old monitor gathering dust. It's awesome for peak in zooming to focus and makes framing easy. I have a film holder that doesn't hold still so keeping an eye on that is crucial.
An extension to that would be to shoot tethered so your files go directly to your computer, or even straight into Lightroom/CaptureOne.
@@TheNakedPhotographer Yeah that would be great. Didn't have spare computer thought :D
I just watched your comparison video again and am going to dig out my 2 enlarging lenses and will buy the Helicoid Lens Mount. I just recently purchased a used Sigma 105mm f2.8 D EX macro lens along with the 35mm and 120 VLADS Test Targets so I should be all set. I plan to test both setups at f8 & f11 to see which is the sharpest. I figure since I'm spending a lot of time scanning, I will use the sharpest setup on all my negatives. Thanks for the comparison.
Olympus em5ii {$250) & Canon nFD 50mm ($50) + a cheap adapter = a permanently- mounted, flippy-screen, wifi contrlled, 4:3, 64mpx, for a ~$300 scanning beast. Added bonus, the smaller sensor provides better relative DoF and uses the central portion of the lens:)
Interesting about the enlarging lens. You can also adapt the scanning lens from old broken film scanners. Another great video sir!
I'm definitely gonna try this setup, thanks man!
How is that set up working for you? I should renew my m43 body eventually (EM5 mk I) and I have been procrastinating camera scanning untill I get a higher res/pixel shift body. Someone at an auction site claimed they were having issues with the pixel shift shots when inverted (banding IIRC).
awesome vid! I use El Nikkor and Rodenstock enlarging lenses on my Durst Color Copy setup - works a treat, so good to see your vid validate my experience.
This is why I keep watching your vids. Thanks so much!
I love the results using my rodagon enlarger lens with Pentacon bellows. But even the Jupiter 9 and the helios 58mm were sharp to the edge at f11.
Just blew my mind with the enlarging lens!!!! 👍👍👍
Awesome video man thanks for taking the time to do this for those of us interested in it.
My suggestion overall with lenses on 35mm sensors and especially on crop sized sensors is to not exceed the f8 apparture. In 35mm once you go lower than f8 diffraction distortion usually tend to take place. Diffraction is a distortion that usually starts kicking in at f11 and lower in 35mm and in larger formats f16 and lower (sometimes in medium format it exist in f22, because the lenses were bigger the diffraction was much less notable and much less critical). Diffraction is also the reason in small appartures we get star shaped lights instead of circular. It will flatten the colours and it will soften in a weird way the edges.
For example in 10:29 I think there is slight diffraction distortion in the centre circle compared to the f2.8 sample and the whites are grayer than in f2.8.
Simillarly in 16:35 the whites are getting much grayer in the f11 case and it doesn't seem as sharp as it could get. Now of course it might be the resolution or the lens itself, but I do think some minor diffraction distortion took place in these samples. F8 in general is suggested regardless.
Even 4 element enlarging lenses might work quite well stopped down, they are underrated! The modified Cooke Triplet (Tessar) type lenses are normally very well corrected for distortion, flatness of field doesn't matter at F8 or F11. A "nifty fifty" could be used in reverse for scanning 35 mm negatives to greatly improve results, but it might not work with larger formats (not on a DSLR, but perhaps on a mirrorless body). And then you need all the additional items (helicoid adapter, reversal adapter, extension tubes) … easier to just buy a good macro lens, because you know what you get (with everything else it is like throwing dice).
Thanks for doing this !
Just getting back to film alongside digital, I decided to go the DSLR scan route over a film scanner for the 35mm I'll shoot..
I 'm amazed to see you using an enlarger stand for a mount - I just bought an enlarger column and mount last week. I * hope * to use the Sigma 150mm macro in the setup ; it's a sharp heavy beast of a lens though it is fandamntastic for macro shooting insects. At present I'm trying to pick what might be a better adjustability setup instead of a ballhead.
I have a geared head and may try that instead. The ball head was just convenient at the moment
Very helpful! I've been looking for someone to explain why extension tubes were giving me terrible quality with my Sony lenses when scanning (commonly called) 35mm negatives. I was getting edge distortion that wasn't just a focus issue. I just ordered a dedicated macro lens/adapter setup-can't wait to try it. I would just add that for straight copy work, that enlarging lens gives you the most bang for your buck, but of course a macro lens can be used for regular photography, too, so it might make more sense for some.
Thank you for making this video, I am just about to start my journey in black and white film photography. As it happens I have an old enlarger of which the transformer packed in. My initial intention was to scan the negatives using the enlarger lenses. It came with the f2.8 50mm component s and a nikon el-nikor 80mm f5.6. Although I did consider the helicoid I opted for a macro bellows, but hopefully a decent one which I am waiting for arrival. Second hand off ebay, but not made out of paper like the new ones you see advertised. So I am really glad I saw this comparison to confirm my thinking was on the right track. I was also hoping to adapt the enlarger stand to support it all. If the bellows don't turn out to be a good option I will look at the helicoid. But of course then I thought why not try some darkroom work. I came across what is hopefully a much better enlarger than the one I had. This one is the Durst DA900 with the CLS 201 colour head. With this and the supplied 66 automotive and 69 automotive you can turn from a condenser type enlarger to diffusion. Everything seems to work fine. Complete with rodenstock rodegon 50 and 80mm lenses both f5.6. However the YMC only goes to 60 max. Have you any idea how to translate these for ilford vc papers. There data sheets are for Durst 170 and 130 max. Keep on making great video.
I have been scanning my old negatives using a 50mm prime lens with extension tubes. Most of the photos are for screen viewing, but I want to print some of them to hang on the walls. I think I will re-scan those with an enlarger lens setup.
The Sigma 105mm Macro is by far the best lens I've tested in terms of sharpness, especially edge sharpness. The distortion leaves a bit to be desired, but the correction profile for it is perfect and doesn't seem to impact the edge sharpness. I know this video is more about frugality, but if you can swing $600, it is the best tool for the job.
It does look excellent - I've been considering the Sigma Art 70mm 2.8 macro
You are getting an Epson V600 or even an V750 for that price + SilverFast if you are buying it new.
Well, the quality is considerably better. SilverTrash lol @@Keckegenkai
Ooo never realized enlarger lenses were so easy to adapt and use for this purpose. I've ordered two for my eventual darkroom so maybe I'll try them out for this someday.
In my scan setup I use the Laowa Macro 100 f/2.8 which is available in many mounts (could go F to Minolta in your case) and its a really crisp lens at a decent price even new with the biggest drawback being that the focus throw is hot trash so focusing is anxiety inducing but not so bad. An actual advantage is it does 2:1 even so I get nice detail even when scanning smaller stuff like half frame.
I was surprised you went down to f/11. I'd heard diffraction hits sooner so I generally just go to 5.6. Maybe I should check someday if it worsens further on or gets better.
Stray unasked for tip: I'm a fan of stitching medium format negatives. I usually take a 6cm by 4cm image then stitch in the horizontal direction (so two images for 6x6 and 3 for 6x9). Gets a lot more resolution I find and is only slightly more hassle.
Great video as always!
I don’t stitch because I’m just making a digital copy for online posting. I don’t have the intent of printing digitally where all the detail is needed. If I were, stitching would be the way to go.
For diffraction, I made a video a few months ago about that topic. The sharpest stop for my lens was f/11, just barely beating f/8 in the corners. Smaller stops induced diffraction that was barely noticeable at f/16, definitely noticeable at f/22
I'd use a astrograph with extension tubes myself, their whole point is to not have distortions or aberrations.
Mainly good if you already have one otherwise a good film scanner can be had for the same budget.
a great series, thank you. People tested the 50mm Componon S and found that it's not perfect at 1:1 magnification but it does start to shine once you go to bigger negatives,
"enlarging" not just copying (from the lens point of view), I think you might get even better results with large format neg, but then you would be digitising LF with only 24mp. When you get to the lighting can you please also look at LED vs incandescent and white light vs filtered (to get rid of some of the orange mask optically)(colour enlarging head style) Thanks again
What would you do with your extra megapixels? 24MP is more than you will ever use if you are not printing, consider 4k is pretty much the max display resolution people have.. and thats 8MP. And for prints no digital repro will be enough, as you need much larger files.
Hello Stefan! Are there links to the tests on large format with the 50mm Componon S lens, which you mention? I'm looking to make digital "contact sheets," so sounds like the Componon S lens might be optimal :) Also wondering if those tests would mention sort of adapter(s) would be necessary for getting the wider views - wider than copying single 35mm/120 frame in the above video. I imagine the helicoid mentioned by the Naked Photographer might have too much magnification/narrow angle of view to cover an 8x10+ size area.
I've been using the Nikkor 55mm 2.8 ai-s macro + Nikon PB-6 bellows + Nikon PS-6 slide copying adapter. It works great but it's 35mm film only. I think if you don't need to scan medium format, this set up is more cost effective than purchasing all the stuff from Valoi or Negative supply. I couldn't ask for better scans. Just make sure you have a decent light source.
Neat, I just purchased these bellows and have been using it for macro. Stellar performance. Though I need to get the proper macro lens to use them for 35mm scanning.
@@blackdiamondgreg I upgraded the lens to a Schneider Compnon-s 50mm f2.8 enlarger lens. Center sharpness is the same compared to the Nikkor but the edges are sharper because of the flat field nature of enlarger lenses. And those are pretty cheap too. I just had to buy a 39-42 adapter and a M42 to Nikon-F to make it work.
Very cool video! Though I think I'll stick to my flatbed for images I'm just putting on the internet. Luckily it's still going strong, and for the most part it's less work and produces good enough results.
I think this method is super complicated, cause it very dependable on various factors. But in a same time you can get a nice (used) scanner for around $100 with stable and much better quality. And with scanner you'll go plug'n'play and no need to giggle around that construction.
Brilliant love your technique. Question where do I get the Hama Test Negativ searched suppliers and their site with no luck.
I looked at enlarging lenses when setting up my camera scanning rig, and yes, they're nice, but for me, the primary drawback was manual focus. Obtaining critical focus was easy enough, but for my particular workflow, took too long. I ended up going with the Sigma 70mm ART macro lens (the new one). I've had that lens on a number of bodies, the current one being a Canon EOS R5, and for 35mm... man... crispy. It's not a cheap lens, but boy does it ever bring the optical performance, and perfect reliable focus is as simple and fast as simply engaging the camera's focus system, which for Canon dual pixel AF bodies, is crazy good AF.
I would say it depends on if you change formats a lot. If someone is only shooting and scanning one format, the longer set up time of the enlarging lens is just a one time thing. Since I am just doing things quickly for the web on occasion, the macro lens is faster and easier.
@@TheNakedPhotographer Very true. This was for my processing lab, and I scan everything from 110 up to 120 in 6x9 and my rig, and many hundreds of rolls a month, so for me, it just didn't make sense to use an enlarging lens, but that's just me. Everybody will have their own unique situation, and this video is a really good rundown of what can be done.
Many thanks for the detailed comparisons, Mr. N. Photographer! Wondering if you’ve used the Componon S lens for copying 8x10s or "contact sheets." Would the helicoid you mentioned give too much magnification/narrow angle of view? Have you made 8x10/contact sheet-size scans with the Schneider using a full frame camera, and if so, what sort of adapter(s) would you use?… same as mentioned for the 1:1 scans, or something else?
Awesome video! I have a question regarding your setup. Do you think that there is any side effect from the ambient light coming into the slide, given that it is mounted below what appears to be a reflective surface? I have seen similar DSLR scanners that use a bellows to block any side light. Looking at the resulting scans I saw no visible effect, but I'm curious if you thought about it.
Not that I know of, but I usually have the room lights off when I do this.
Hello,
Is there a reason you dont mount a Helicoid M39 to Sony for the enlarger lens?
did you, for 135, still have to place the extension tubes ect in combination with the enlarger lens requirements?
It depends on the focal length of the lens and how close you are to the subject. In this case I was using a 50mm lens and focused at a 1:1 ratio. That means I needed 100mm of extension, which was more than my helical could provide alone. A different helical may not be as short as mine and be fine directly between lens and camera.
What about modern macro lenses for digital cameras? should they not resolve better than older analogue lenses?
The optical performance of a modern macro lens (floating elements, multicoating) is usually optimized for a reproduction ratio around 1:2. A 50mm enlarging lens like used here is optimized for around 1:10, so the macro lens should be a bit better here. IMO the issues relating to inadequate alignment, lack of rigid support, variable flatness in the subject negative, etc., will offset such lens differences on a shot by shot basis.
Optimized distance or not, in practice the performance in sharpness was identical with a slight increase in contrast using the enlarging lens, giving it the edge for me.
Very good video, helped me out alot!
A cheap excellent macro option: Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro (f5.6 - f8 is the sweet spot)
I've been looking at adapting this exact lens! I've heard that with camera scanning you want to go with a lens with a longer focal length if possible - have you found the fact it's a 50mm an issue at all? There's another sigma macro that is 70mm but it's not quite as cheap
@@ellyrion8173 If it is for digitizing negatives the focal length does not matter much. As you increase focal length the distance from subject to lens also increases thereby requiring a larger stand.
@@michaelrasmussen3347 Yeah that's what I was thinking - I'm guessing that belief must stem from older wider angle lenses having greater distortion at the sides.
How have you found the sharpness at the edges when scanning with the 50mm sigma? It's £75 used for the 50mm EX DG and around £140 for the 70mm EX DG here in the UK - I've seen tests with the 70mm on silicone wafers that look great so if the 50mm is close to that sharpness at the edges I'll save some money and go for it! Thanks
I just found a 50 mm expander lens on FB Marketplace for 10 bucks. Planning to use a Nikon 7200 for my scanning camera. What type of adapter do I need to start hunting for? Will I need expansion tubes?
Did you use the tube on the 50mm Macro examples? If so what lengths? Thanks!
The results coincide with mine.
I have, because I have both a Rodenstock APO Rodagon 2.8/50 and the Minolta AF 2.8/50 Macro, already digitised with both options. Depending on which lens was free at the time. But even my old Polish 50mm enlarger lenses come very close to the quality of the two good options.
Trying it with a 50mm normal lens is not really worth it.
Here in Germany you can get the Minolta AF 2.8/50 macro from 85 -150€. So with Rodagon, Helicoid and extension rings or the macro you get good results at about the same price.
Thank you! Great video. I wander what will be better on Sony A7RII camera - enlarger lens or that Minolta AF 50mm 2.8 macro via adapter.
Sony makes the 2.8 macro lens in the correct E mount
I wonder how these compare to reverse ring adapters 🤔
What if I use 400mm lens with macro adapter? Is it going to be better then 50mm?
Very helpful video, I'm DSLR scanning my own film with a Pansonic G9 plus a Laowa 50mm macro lens and have got decent results with both 135 and 120 films. The video looks abot choppy though, maybe a shutter speed issue?
Do you find the high res mode helps with scanning? I was watching a video and apparently the results are great, not necessarily because of the high megapixels but because of reduction of the Bayer filter effects like aliasing and moire, poor grain definition..
@@alanstoss The high-res mode gives more resolution that's for sure as well as offering the benifits you mentioned. From my own experience, a straight 20MP shot cannot resolve what medium format film is capable of and gives mediocore results for 135 film so I use HI-res mode exclusively for scanning and down sample in post.
I have a Nikon scanning adapter I use with my Z5 and 60mm micro. The question in my mind is why am I shooting film and using the results of a digital camera to record display the image? Makes sense if someone wants to digitize old shots but I am thinking why am I not using the digital camera to photography in the first place?
Just thinking out loud I guess but I will stick to my scanners for film digitalization.
That’s a personal choice you will have to make. I shoot film and print in the darkroom, but sometimes I need to digitize an image to show online or email to a gallery. And of course, I have tons of shots just for this channel that will never go beyond the video, like my comparisons and reviews.
Great video! Thanks!
Excellent video, a lot of information. Where I can find a 35mm test negative? Thanks!
I find mine on ebay
@@TheNakedPhotographer thanks!
What do you search to find them? Can't seem to find any results
Thank you for the video
Why the 50mm enlarging lens? Would an 80mm of 105mm improve as then only the centre of the circle would be used.
I didn’t include it in the video, but I tested a 100mm Componon-S too. The results were the same but the camera had to be much higher and the extension from camera to lens was much greater. Remember, 1:1 means a lens is extended twice it’s focal length, so the 100mm lens has to be 200mm from the sensor for the 35mm frame, and is typically the same distance from the subject, so the camera was around 400mm above the film.
Where did you get that t-shirt? :)
They are available from my merchandise store. Link is in the video description
@@TheNakedPhotographer thanks! Even better if I get to support the channel with buying it!
I use the Laowa 100mm 2x APO macro. It's pretty sharp and not that expensive. I also have a 50mm Componon S, but no adapter and therefore never tried it.
not that expensive? it's 600€ damn it!
Mdma mount should be good.
Would there be any difference in quality when using different focal length lenses like 50mm vs 90mm?
It all comes down to the optical performance of the lens, in this case it's more of a working distance difference.
Hey, where did you get those test negatives?
eBay
Hey how would I fit the whole 120 negative inframe and in focus with the enlarger lens
Raise the camera higher
@@TheNakedPhotographer it's gets more blurry when I do that
The further the camera is from the subject (in this case that would be your negatives), the closer the lens must be to the camera sensor. That means you need to have fewer spacers or extensions on your enlarger lens adapter.
@@TheNakedPhotographer would shooting a crop sensor change anything also?
It only means you need more distance from the film than a full frame camera
Do you have to use a 50mm ?
No, it’s what I have. Longer lenses need more distance
@@TheNakedPhotographer ok thanks I mostly shoot film 35 mm. Just getting into digital and looking into scanning.
Some people like a 90 or 100mm macro because of the working distance. My 50mm makes me be awful close to the negative
@@TheNakedPhotographer ok that. Awesome sense thank you.
I see you went cheap on the portrait model😄
I may be cheap, but I show up on time every time
But sir, mount enlarger lens oposit. It's not ment to work this side in. ;)
Light travels both ways
@@TheNakedPhotographer Very rearly you find symmetrical lens design ;)
Put it like it ment to work.
There are no other options than a good macro lens. Any other lenses are a waste of time. Unless, after scanning, you want to find out that you wasted your time because the scanned frames are sharp only in the center of the frame and soft at the edges. Only macro lenses are free from almost all optical defects that other lenses are full of.
Setups like these you have really hard time aligning everything, instead of a stance.. use something you can attach to your lens threads that stands on the film holder... sadly its just poor design in the film holder overall. Like you can see on your photos, that the camera is misaligned to the film. At 1:1 the tolerances are really small.
The more its misaligned, the more you will stop down your lenses to compensate for it and the more you lose for diffraction. As at 1:1 your actual fstop is much smaller than what the number says. F/11 would be f/22 in reality. So f/11 is way too much for 1:1.
@ nobody nowhere - the results look pretty good.
@@MrFreakwent Pretty good on a high contrast target does not really translate that well. And considering how cumbersome that kind of setup is, the time you spend aligning the camera and film holder every time. I dont really get it, its just a really bad design. You could do that so much more simpler and better, and it would take up much less room.
But then again, i dont think quality is what people seek from these setups. Nor that you can even really even get out of these. Guess this is more hobbyist stuff.
My main issue with these setups is just that when a bad design like this enters the market, and its the promoted with huge effort and becomes a "thing" so everyone will just follow it. While it makes zero sense.
We get it, you don’t like them. Move on.
@@Nobody-Nowhere who pissed in your Cheerios this morning? The results look good and that's all that matters. Who cares how it's done.
@@Nobody-Nowhere You have to align one time and it is easy with a mirror.
For the first two minutes you talked just fine without any music in the background. Why was it necessary to start talking over music from that point on? Why do you RUclipsrs think that is such a great thing to do?
Why is it necessary to complain about a video? Why do viewers think leaving comments is a great thing to do?