lenses for artwork slides?

Hi all. I am a painter and I have a few questions about documenting

my work with 35mm slides. I have been taking slides of my work for a

while now, so I do know at least the basics. I shoot tungsten light

and film, bracket, etc. and usually get at least good results. But

the lenses I have used aren�t particularly sharp. I discovered this

when I rented a Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro AF-D and the slides turned

out much sharper than my usual efforts.

 

I am about to finish graduate school and make a massive round of

applications for university art teaching jobs. In my section of

academics, that means 20 slides of my work go to each place I apply

(and I�ll send out at least 30 applications). In order to get this

done, I am likely to get copies made of originals. So, though I want

to keep my spending reasonable, I am willing to put some money into

lenses that will contribute to the sharpest originals possible.

 

I have a Nikon FE2 body (I am very happy with it for now), cable

release and a good Bogen tripod. Lenses I have now are a 50mm 1.8

series E, and a Sigma 75-300 zoom (the 50 optics quality seem OK but

the zoom is barely marginal). I have done some research, and so have

questions about buying lenses for those with experience.

 

The lenses I am looking at are:

 

1. Nikon 105 2.8 Micro AF-D, same model I rented and liked- but will

the �working room� become hard to accommodate given my studio space

limitations?.

2. Nikon 60 2.8 Micro AF-D, $200 cheaper than the 105 but is it as

good for what I need?

3. Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro, are the optics as good as the Nikons, and

will it work as well with the FE2?

4. Nikon 35-70mm 2.8 zoom AF-D, the 1:4 �macro� function may zoom

in close enough for detail shots- if the lens is as sharp as the

other options.

 

Most of the work I shoot is ranges from about 9 inches square to 3

feet square. I am limited by the size of my studio to about 15 feet

of distance that I can get between the camera and my art work when

taking slides. To make the problem worse, my work does get large

occasionally (as in 9 feet high) and I seem to be doing even more of

that kind of big stuff lately (though I usually shoot those size

works in a gallery where I can back up farther away to take the

slides).

 

The main consideration is sharpness here. Speed is not important, I

can lock the mirror to avoid vibration and open the shutter for as

long as I need to. So my questions:

 

1. Are there other lenses that will work just as well as the ones I

listed (since they don�t need to be fast) for less money? That is,

lenses that are just as sharp at lower f stops but slower.

2. Can anyone recommend a good combo of a lens for taking shots of

small works, and another lens for larger works (say a 105 or 60 micro

and a 28 prime or 20-50 zoom or something)?

3. My FE2 is manual focus anyway, are there older non-AF lenses I

have not listed that will work just as well? (Though I may want a

lens that I can use on an AF Nikon if I buy one in another 5 years or

so).

4. Are there any questions I am not considering that I should be,

and/or does anyone have hints for getting sharper slides in general?

(For my work at least, slight shifts in color are a lot less

important to me than sharpness).

 

I have cruised through the archives for info on this subject, but I

can�t find quite what I need. Sorry that this has gotten rather

large, and I appreciate the chance at expert advice tremendously.

So you are talking about photographing art on a copy stand? You really will see better results with the micro-nikkors especially since they are optimized to produce a flat field image. This is required to hold perfect sharpness through the entire frame along one flat plane, i.e. printed artwork.

 

The micro-nikkor 60/2.8 doesn't have the best manual focussing action but is an extremely sharp and flat field optic. Since you use an FE2, have you considered the manual focus micro-nikkor 55/2.8? It is a classic lens for copy work. The main difference is that the newer optic goes to 1:1 magnification (24 x 36mm), the older to 1:2 (48 x 72mm) by itself w/o a tube (1:1 with the tube). Either will suit your stated needs.

 

The 105/2.8 is not as well suited to copy work (not true flat field) but very good nonetheless. If you intend to shoot other subjects (portraits, macro subjects) it is more flexible than the 55/60.

 

I'd say, get the AIS 55/2.8. You can probably get one for under $200 on the used market.

A good option is a 55 mm f/2.8 micro-Nikkor, now discontinued, which you can pick up used for a very reasonable price. It's a manual focus lens but the nice thing about Nikon is that you can use most MF lenses on AF cameras. This lens is very sharp.

 

As for better sharpness, you're probably already be doing this, but a solid tripod and a cable release will make a big difference. Avoid shutter speeds between 1/4 and 1/30 s, to prevent loss of sharpness from mirror slap. If you can't avoid these speeds, use the self-timer, because it will flip up the mirror at the start of the timer's run, allowing time for the vibrations to fade.

 

Re dupes, I think you will find it less expensive (and better, quality-wise) to simply shoot original duplicates of your slides when you have everything set up. If I were in your position, I'd shoot a roll of film for each shot. Yes, 20 rolls of film is expensive, but I expect it would be less expensive than 1 roll of film and 19 sets of high-quality dupes.

Um, if you use a copy stand, illuminate with flash, and shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 (NO SMALLER!) your 50/1.8E will do much better than well enough.

 

I've got some very nice results using copy stand, FM2n, 55/2.8 micronikkor, vivitar 283 with flash off camera and the flash's eye in the 283 remote eye holder in the camera's hot shoe. Flash was on a tripod, in front of the copy stand, and angled @ 45 degrees to the subject (I was copying maps and text) to avoid reflections from the piece of sheet glass I used to keep the subject by god flat.

 

If you're lucky and have an SB-15 or other flash that does auto-flash TTL with your FE2, all you need is a SC-17 cable to position the flash off camera as suggested above.

 

Don't really need a copy stand, its just harder to make everything parallel when art is on wall and camera is on tripod. With a copy stand, the trick is level the copy stand, then level the back of the camera.

Absolutely one of the 55mm Micro-Nikkors!(Order one from a dealer that allows returns,then you can test it to see if it fits your needs.)The newer F2.8's are said to be sharper than the older F3.5's,but the latter are tack sharp & cheaper!(You will need an AI version or a lens so modified for an FE2).Id have to agree on your present glass,the sigma is fine for non "critical work" and the series E 50mm is "not bad" stopped down.

As several others have commented, the 55mm/f2.8 Auto Mocro Nikkor is a gem for copying art works. I have used one for that purpose for many years. It is very sharp and well suited to the task.

I'm doing this tomorrow. Tamron 90mm, in-camera dupes,

tungsten film, a light source on each side of the painting to fill

the shadows. Spot meter to make sure your illumination is even.

 

The paintings I've been asked to do are all roughly the same

size. In your case, I agree that a 55mm would work quite well.

Even a non-macro 50mm would work down to about 9".

The AF 60/2.8(D), 55/2.8 AIS and 55/3.5 AI will all do a

excellent job. A 50/1.8 AI or AIS as well as a 50/2.0 AI will

also provided the size of your subject is large enough. You could

use the last two with extension tubes but thats somewhat

inconvenient.<br>

<br>

The 50/1.8 E is probably not multi-coated. If you find a good

price on a 50/1.8 AI or AIS Id replace it.<br>

<br>

I dont own the 50/2.0 so Im going on reputation for

that lens. I do own the 50/1.8 but have never used it for copy

work. I own and have used the other three for copy work. Bjørn Rørslett

mentions lube contamination with the 55/2.8. Ive never had

the problem and would not worry about it past check a lens before

buying.<br>

<br>

Years ago when I tested most of my lenses very carefully the 55/2.8

was second sharpest of all trailing the 50/1.8 AI by an

insignificant margin. I think the 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor would be

perfect for your project. I tested these two lenses as well as

five 105mm lenses at 2m. The 55/2.8 beat the 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor.<br>

<br>

Hope this helps,<br>

<br>

Dave.<br>

<br>

You may want to check the reviews here: <a

href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html" target="_new">Lens

Survey And Subjective Evaluations By Bjørn Rørslett</a>. Here

is his <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/" target="_new">home

page</a>.