Nikon 60mm f2.8 g vs 50mm f1.4 g for film scanning

[__304_lker_g_k__351_en]

<p>Hello,<br>

I have recently purchased a Nikon D610 and use Nikon 50mm f/1.8D with an extension tube to scan my negatives with it. But I'd like to upgrade my lens to a sharper one to be able to get more details out of my negatives, but I can't decide between two lenses. I am planning to buy either Nikon 60mm f2.8 g or Nikon 50mm f/1.4g with auto extension tubes. Other than light loss, is there a difference in terms of optical quality between these two lenses when used at f/8? If I buy a macro lens, I won't use it for any purpose other than scanning films, so I feel like it will be a waste of money. On the other hand, I really like the new 50mm f/1.4g, but I don't want to sacrifice the quality of the scans. So I'll take whichever gives better optical quality at around f/8.<br>

Thank you,</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Unless you are dealing with 8x10 negatives, they are typically very small. In particular, if you are using a D610 to copy 35mm negatives, you are talking about 1:1 macro. A dedicated macro lens will definitely have a huge advantage.</p>

<p>There seems to be no point to have both a 50mm/f1.8 AF-D and a 50mm/f1.4 AF-S, unless you need the aperture ring on old film SLRs or adapt it onto mirrorless cameras.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>If I were going to do it this way, I would use a macro lens. But it's far more practical to scan negatives on a film camera rather than rephotographing them with a camera. Unless you have one of the high-end slide duplicating setups from film days -- not just a lens and extension tubes but a light source and mounting system, etc. -- it can be difficult to keep everything lined up and get consistent exposure. And you get contrast buildup regardless of the equipment. It can be done but you're going to get better results and get them more consistently with a film scanner.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

The 60mm f/2.8G Micro-Nikkor is more optimal for this kind of work.

 

A couple of tips for using your camera as a scanner

 

- use live view to focus with, whether you use manual or auto-focusing.

 

- shoot using your camera's raw (NEF) not its JPEG format. You want to capture as much color and dynamic range as

possible. Raw will give you flexibility down the line as well.

 

-pick up a copy of "The DAM Book" by Peter Krogh. He covers the issue of scanning with a camera extensively.

http://www.thedambook.com

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I've been dabbling lately in extreme macro capture greater than 1:1 using a 2 1/2 inch extension tube and a $30 film legacy Sigma 28-80 zoom lens set to macro with adjustable aperture ring. I've shot at the lens aperture max of f/22=(about 3/16 inch DOF@ 1 inch from subject) and f/8 with 1/8 inch DOF. Not much room for finding a sharp plane of focus I can tell you.</p>

<p>Shooting at f/22 doesn't give that much more DOF and kicks up a lot of dust off the sensor and/or lens so f/8 tends to be more workable.</p>

<p>Seeing the scant DOF shooting macro could it be you're just not locating the plane of sharpest focus with your current lens? I used a regular $30 50mm prime and the same extension tube and got 1:1 magnification (7/8in. wide APS-C sensor) but sharp focus could only be attained by adjusting distance. The Sigma zoom with macro switch allowed distance, focal length and focus ring adjustments which varied magnification maxing out at 1:(.5)x.</p>

<p>In addition from what I went through with my cheap Sigma zoom I had to hold my breath, rest one finger on the front edge of the lens and the other finger on the subject and slowly and carefully move in/out to find the sharpest focus through the viewfinder and got some really sharp results. Wore out my batteries quickly from all the reshoots because I don't have live view on my DSLR and no tripod, but that's the price I paid shooting hand held which I don't advise for capturing flat film.</p>

<p>In fact you'll need to make sure your lens is perfectly perpendicular top/bottom/left/right plumb to the flat film plane or else you'll get one area sharp another less sharp. The thin DOF may allow some fudging. Use a glass bubble on both the film platen and camera body.</p><div></div>

[owen_omeara]

<p>Go with the 60mm. 2.8G.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[pge]

<p>Given that you already have a 50mm lens, a 60mm macro lens will only be useful to you as a macro lens. Perhaps the 105mm macro lens would work for your present project but would also be useful to you in other areas of your photography.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>60 Micro because it has flat field characteristics and very low geometric distortion.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I agree with Dan above. Flat field will make a difference.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>In my experience the 60mm AF-S Micro has higher image quality at 1:1 than the 105 AF-S VR Micro.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>The 50/1.8AFD is already a good macro lens. I wonder if the 50/1.8G will give you noticeably sharper negatives, probably not, but it only can be said by someone who has compared them side by side.</p>

<p>One of the problems while duplicating is corner sharpness. Even a dedicated good macro lens like the 55/2.8AiS, start to fail beyond 1:2... center sharpness is impressive at 1:1, but corners became just "good". So it makes me think about the corner sharpness of a fast, non macro lens.</p>

<p>Definitely, for image quality at 1:1, I`d buy a "true" macro lens, but if you don`t want to spend money and make your life easy, just use your 50/1.8AFD. If you are not satisfied, you`d probably need a much better setup, with a true repro lens.<br /> With regard to the 50/1.4G, I never compared them (at macro distances), but I`d be highly surprised if any of the 1.4 versions were a better performer (I tested them at normal distances with my D700, and found the 1.8AFD to be slightly "sharper" than the 1.4G).</p>

<p>Another solution could be to buy a cheap enlarging lens (or better a repro lens), but to know if they are better performers than the Micros, a side by side comparison should be made. It`s not that easy. And you also need a bellows.</p>

<p>Longer lenses like a 105mm will ask for longer bellows/holding device extensions (and I`d say they are not sharper), so they could not be the optimal choice.</p>

[mark_stephan2]

<p>Have you considered a dedicated film scanner? I use a CoolScan V ED and I've seen them on eBay for reasonable prices. Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a scanner get more detail from a negative or slide than a lens copying a negative?</p>

[michael_darnton2]

<p>Definitely the micro lens. When I made my setup I tested quite a few different lenses, and enlarging lenses. The enlarging lenses were a particular disappointment. Alignment is important, as is aperture. Past f8, things get rapidly worse.</p>

<p>I love digital--testing equipment is really easy to do, with instant feedback. I ran through a whole bunch of bad choices quickly. Here's what I arrived at: Yes, dedicated film scanner will work better, but I already had all the stuff to do it this way, and this is better than a flatbed, and more than adequate for what I need--prints up to 12x18".</p>

[michael_darnton2]

<p>By the way, normal, non-macro camera lenses, like a 50/1.4 did such a miserable job on flat things at 1:1 that they weren't even on the map for this job. Maybe for flowers or something. . .</p>

[richard_westlake]

<p>Michael, I read your Flickr description of your homemade repro setup. Have you used this rig to shoot color negative film? I'm curious to test something like this myself.<br>

Regards,<br />Richard</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I had a copy stand like Michaels back in the late '80's when you could find one in every thrift store for about $10. I used it dabbling in making short animated movies using a Bell & Howell Directors Series Zoomatic movie camera with a single frame exposure button. Wish I still had the copy stand for shooting macros and artwork. There's no movement or shake and you can lock both platen and camera body down and carefully and delicately ease into finding the sharpest focus. Mine came with lamp fixtures one on each side.</p>

<p>I would think the advantages of using a DSLR over a dedicated film scanner is control over focus and color by shooting Raw. The OP didn't indicate what size negatives he's trying to digitize. Large, medium, 35mm format? Nikon film scanners aren't cheap either with some model's drivers that may not be updated to work with current OS's. Not sure, I've never used one. </p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>For this type of work i use my good old trusted PB4 bellows & slide copy adapter & 55mm macro.<br />If you want to use xtension rings, still the various 55mm lenses are perfect for this task and you can have one for dirt cheap at fleebay ... ( you do not need auto anything for copying negatives and slides .....) .</p>

<p>For which ( older) lens is best you might like to have a look in the PB-4 slide copyer manual at page 6 :<br>

<a href="http://www.nikonpassion.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/manuels/PS4_Manual.pdf">http://www.nikonpassion.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/manuels/PS4_Manual.pdf</a> </p>

 

[jose_angel]

<p>Notice that this PS-4 manual belong to the seventies... since then, some lenses have been updated/improved (e.g., 50/2>50/1.8, 55/3.5>55/2.8).</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Agree Jose, but the 55mm 3.5 iis not changed optically exxcept for a coating somewhere in the 70's , this is just to indicate that using a cheap lai-s or ai, ( or even pre-ai lens l as long as it is not mounted straight om the camera ) could serve well for this purpose </p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>People often bring up the 'Contrast Build-Up' thing with film digitizing/duping. Film to film, yes undoubtedly. Film to Digi??</p>

<p>Your modern FX DSLR has over 14 EVs depth per exposure, is anyone seriously telling me conventional film has more?* X-Ray plates, maybe, I've digitized enough of those to know you need an HDR approach to get best results, but Tech Pan, FP4 negs etc are just fine with one shot.</p>

<p>60mm AF-<strong>D</strong> @ f5.6 for me. Flat-Field and very sharp. 2nd hand ones are very affordable.</p>

<p>* I know film scanners manage about 16-18 EVs or a Dmax of 5, but the actual film material isn't anywhere near that dense.</p>

<p> </p>

[michael_darnton2]

<p>1/ I have tried color negs. The conversion is tricky but it can be done. These folks have what is apparently the best solution: http://www.dl-c.com/ It was called Color Perfect, I think, and I don't see it on their site--maybe they rolled it into their main product? Or maybe this is it, now: http://www.colorneg.com/colorperfect.html?lang=en</p>

<p>2/ I use a dawn-of-time Micro-Nikkor (metal, fluted focus ring, non-AI) for this job. I tested it against a mid-period one (square-bits rubber ring AI), and a new 60/2.8 AF-D, and could see absolutely no difference. AF works well, believe it or not, once you get the reproduction ratio right, and I use it when I use the AF, or I use the green dot with the old lens, and it works better than I can do with my eyes.</p>

<p>3/ Film doesn't have anywhere near the contrast range of the real world. The in-camera histogram of my D300 usually shows around the middle half of the range of the camera's capability is being used when copying film.</p>

<p>4/ My copy stand is the base of a Durst M301 enlarger that I bought for $25 on Ebay. I use a ball head with a rectangular QR, and have found a way to put the QR on my camera consistently so that once the ball head is set, I don't have to check parallelism every time I want to use the rig.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>2/ I use a dawn-of-time Micro-Nikkor (metal, fluted focus ring, non-AI)<br>

AF works well</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How does AF work with a PRE AI lens ?</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>and a new 60/2.8 AF-D, and could see absolutely no difference. AF works well, believe it or not, once you get the reproduction ratio right, and I use it when I use the AF, or I use the green dot with the old lens<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>AF for 60mm AF-D .<br>

<br>

Green Dot for Pre AI..<br>

<br>

Simples...:-)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>You <em>can</em> do it, especially with a real macro lens, but is it worth it?<br>

Nikon made a slide scanning attachment for the PB-4 bellows, although I'm not enthusiastic about that path either.<br>

Another serious vote for considering getting a film scanner for this. I'd think that even some of the $200 flatbed film scanners would yield superior results (e.g., http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00b9l6 ).</p>

[michael_darnton2]

<p>According to the flatbed tests I've seen, every film scanner tops out at a real 2200dpi, regardless of manufacturer's specs. My D300 does a better job than any of the three flatbeds I've had. If I had a Nikon D800e, like I want to have sooner or later, it would blow flatbeds out of the water. Then there's the issue of speed--I can scan maybe ten negs with my camera in the time my flatbed scans one.</p>

<p>You're right, it looks kludgy, but it works well and is very fast. That's why many museums and archives are using cameras for scanning film now, rather than flatbeds.</p>