Raynox 250 filter for digitising medium format?

<p>Hey all,<br>

I'm considering using a Raynox 250 filter on a 70mm lens to digitise 6x4.5 medium format.<br />Using this method: https://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/<br>

Would that be enough magnification to capture something close to 6000x4000pixel images of the negatives?<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>If you use macro, which in fact is the best way to go, take 4-6 shots, stitch them and you'll have plenty of resolution. You will have so much, that you'd need to reduce it to send it via email or move around computer. Ha, even older Elements can stitch photos quite well.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>You will have a very shallow DOF, in the order of magnitude of a few millimeters. Here macro lenses show their advantage, being flat field lenses. I'm not sure about the Raynox or other close up lenses in this respect. These give you de needed magnification but be prepared for unsharpness near the edges of the picture. </p>

Which digital camera are you using?

<p>D7200, 50mm AF-D 1.8 (around 70mm on FX body), and Raynox 250 filter.<br>

So you think switching to a dedicated macro would work better?<br />I'm thinking of getting an AF-D or AIS old macro lens to save on cost since I'll only use it for this. What do you think?</p>

<p>Either macro Nikkor 50mm F2.8 or F3.5 (manual) would be fine and at reasonable cost...I use Tamron 90/2.8. You need accurate focus and AF (as in 'AF-D') would hunt needlessly.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>The micro-nikkor lenses are designed to be used with extension tubes for close-ups.</p>

<p>As tubes don't have lenses, you can use any brand and not worry about image quality.</p>

<p>I have the 55/2.8 that I bought many years ago, and didn't use as much as I thought I might. </p>

<p>I did some slide scanning with it, by putting part of a plastic bottle, with the bottom cut off, which was just the right diameter to fit around the focus ring. Rubber band around the outside made it a little tighter. I then focus until a slide touching the end is properly focused, and hope it doesn't shift. </p>

<p>I used that for a large group of slides which would have taken too long with a slide scanner, and which I didn't need the image quality that a real scanner would give. (Good enough for Facebook.) I don't remember now what I used for a light source, or the aperture I used. I suspect stopped down enough for a little more depth of field.</p>

<p>I use the highly underrated Micro Nikkor 40/2.8g on my D7200 to copy 120 negs--a perfect focal length and great results. An Ai-converted 55/3.5 is another, less-expensive solution. If possible, splurge for the 40/2.8g--pin-sharp and better bokeh than the 35/1.8g. I'd pass on the Raynox or any diopter other than the dual element Canon or Nikon versions.</p>