MANUAL MACRO LENS

[kebuldaj]

Hello lens lovers,

Would like to start scanning my slides with digital camera, and trying to decide which macro lens should I try. As I have Fuji X-T2 (APSC) camera,
the first idea came in form of Laowa 65mm f/2.8 2x Ultra Macro APO. Has good reviews, modern glass, APO design and etc.

Afterwise I thought it's for APSC sensor, so versatility is not so high, as if I could change camera system for more megapixel full frame sensor - no use for this lens.. Then I tried to find out some vintage lens options, as they could be easily adapter to any system and manual focus is more than enough for this kind of task. So I came to these options:

Nikon Micro Nikkor Ai-S 55mm 1:2.8
Asahi Pentax Macro-Takumar 50mm f4.0
Mamiya Sekor Macro C 80mm f4.0
Asahi Pentax SMC Macro Takumar 6x7 135mm f4.0
Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 60 mm 1:2.8 C/Y
Carl Zeiss S-Planar T* Macro 60mm f2.8 C/Y
Leica Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm 1:2.8
Rodenstock APO Rodagon N 50mm f2.8 Enlarger / Macro Lens

..also modern Samyang Optics 100mm F2.8 ED UMC MACRO

I hear words that vintage macro lenses are not as good as modern glass, so again it adds some more confusion, to forget vintage and look to modern glass..

Does anyone can please share some thoughts regarding these macro lenses?

1. Main purpose - slide scanning.
2. Not more than 500-600 USD.
3. Vintage or Modern.
3. Choosing APSC for current setup / to have more versatility with FF lenses. (Even with APSC setup I think FF glass could have more IQ, as it will use central part of the lens)
4. Laowa and Rodenstock APO design / any design
5. Any more IQ with medium format glass? (M645 or Pentax 67)

Thanks again!

Mindas.

[blotafton]

I can share my experiences with scanning but unfortunately not with the lenses you have listed.

I started using a Canon EOS 40D with a EF 100mm 2.8 USM Macro. Then upgraded to a Sony a7 but kept the lens for the scanning.
I think the Canon lens may create some CA so it would be interesting to try something better but so far the results are quite close as good as it gets.

Depending on you setup you may encounter internal reflections depending focal lengths. I remember reading this from another one doing scanning. He ended up with a longer lens, 150 or 180mm macro instead of eliminating the reflections.

The APO Rodagon should do well. I have a non APO Rodagon 50mm. It's a very good lens but I can not easily use it in my current scanning setup.

You may want to look at the Nikon ES slide scanning accessory. I have not looked into details but I think it can be used with other lenses than Nikkors.

[kebuldaj]

[D1N0]

Your light source is probably more important than your lens. Did you see this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqSvTJ0s5MM

[blotafton]

[kebuldaj]

[kebuldaj]

[blotafton]

[D1N0]

[cooltouch]

I put together a slide and strip film duplicating setup using various extensions and adapters with my Nikon 55mm f/2.8 AIs macro lens for use with my APSC Sony NEX 7, the assortment which gave me almost exactly full frame (for the crop Sony that is) dupes, 6000 x 4000 pixels resolution. For some years previous, I was using an older Nikon 55mm f/3.5. But when I got the 55mm f/2.8, I decided I'd try it with my dupe setup, and I was actually surprised to see a noticeable improvement in resolution.

So I can highly recommend the Nikon Micro 55mm f/2.8 AIs for slide dupes. It's certainly worked well for me.

[caspert79]

[Blazer0ne]

...

[e6filmuser]

What you are trying to do is nothing to do with scanning. it is straightforward copying.

Scanning is akin to photocopying, where a document, or image, is copied via a moving lens.

[michelb]

See
https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/finally-did-it-all-my-slides_topic80146_post926073.html?KW=slides#926073

That was my set-up

[Knudsen]

[e6filmuser]

As you're copying from 35mm slide to the cropped sensor you need 1:2 reproduction, which more macro lenses do that will do 1:1.

The only lens on your list which I have is the Elmarit. It is very good but I found the Kiron 105mm a bit better for macro.

A cheap, but very sharp, option for a new lens is the Oshiro 60mm macro, available in various mounts, which will do 2:1 for macro.

If you want the ultimate get a Printing Nikkor 105.

If your slides are not in glass mounts allow for them bulging. Don't use maximum aperture.

For exposure use manual flash on a fixed setting. Any flash metering would adjust for exposure of some dark or light (by intent) slides.

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=113545#113545

Here are some I did, using the Elmarit. Note that the film trannies (finest film available) lack some detail compared with modern digital:

https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=16977

Hope this helps.

[philslizzy]

Try an enlarger lens like the E-Rokkor or El-Nikkor

[jamaeolus]

I can say that the APO rodagon 75mm f4 1:1 will do marvellously well for this as, well, it is designed for it. They can be had for midrange in your budget pretty easily. I think I paid just under 200 for mine but that was after waiting a long time for an auction and apparently not many other folk were on the site at the time.

[Blazer0ne]

...

[xaprb]

I also shoot on Fujifilm APS-C digital bodies. I got irrationally interested in vintage macros for some reason at one point, and watched auctions, Goodwill, etc for a while very successfully. I was doing a lot of insects and flowers and so forth at the time. I got mint, sometimes new-in-box, copies of the following. However, despite the _reputation_ some of these lenses have, after using a bunch of them, I concluded that not very many people have really compared them directly to each other. People will write things in forum threads like "The X lens is astonishingly sharp, as sharp as any macro ever made!" or something. Certainly they are all very nice lenses and a joy to use, but I have multiple copies of some of them (or I have e.g. a couple brands of a lens that was sold under several brands, like a Panagor, a Vivitar, a Kiron, a Tokina...) and when you really shoot the same subject for a direct apples-to-apples comparison, and compare the resulting photos, and then compare to modern lenses, well, a lot of them aren't as good as forum threads would make you believe. Again, they can be super nice... but none of them matches my Fujifilm 80mm macro's sharpness. For that matter, I have the Fujifilm-mount version of the Laowa 65mm 2x macro and it also beats every single vintage macro I've used, by an obvious margin. (I think Laowa makes outstanding optics for a very good price. I also love the focusing mechanics of this lens. Genius.)

Here's the list of macros I own. I hope you're sitting down to read this so you don't fall over in surprise ;-) Also, if I bid against you in any of these auctions, my apologies...

* Vivitar 90mm f2.8
* Kiron 105mm f2.8
* Zeiss Makro-Planar 100mm f2
* Laowa 65mm f2.8
* Fujifilm 80mm f2.8
* Tamron SP 90mm f2.8, model 72B
* Soligor 100mm f2.8
* Vivitar Series 1 90-180mm f4.5
* Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f2.8-3.5
* Cosina AF 100mm f3.5 ("plastic fantastic")
* Tokina 100mm f2.8, model M100 Pro D
* SMC Pentax-M 100mm f4
* Vivitar Series 1 105mm f2.5
* Vivitar 135mm f2.8 Close Focusing
* Tokina 90mm f2.5 "Bokina"
* Tamron SP 90mm f2.5, model 52B
* SMC Pentax-M 50mm f4
* Vivitar 55mm f2.8
* Nikon 55mm f2.8 AI-S

My top-list from that list would be the Fuji 80mm, the Laowa 65mm, the Bokina, the Zeiss, and the Nikon -- for different reasons (e.g. some are more versatile for general use like portraiture, some are small, some are gorgeously sharp, some are cheap...) and then I think the rest are honestly pretty similar: not optically astonishing in any particular way, very nice lenses, some not-that-great like the Vivitar 135 close-focus which is notably less sharp... but hard to pick favorites and all worth owning. I suspect most vintage macros are like that.

As another poster noted, cheap modern macros can be had: Oshiro, 7Artisans, Meike, Pergear, TTArtisan has one forthcoming... from looking at these it looks to me like they're mostly recycling the optics and mechanics of vintage macros. I wouldn't expect anything outstanding from most of them relative to one of the vintage lenses. The Laowa is the exception, I think, in that they're producing original optical designs. I'm a fan of some of these brands especially TTArtisan, but generally I wouldn't say the budget modern lenses are better value for money than a used lens from the 90s or something.

If you have questions about any specific few of them, or if you'd like any example shots of a couple to compare them, I'm happy to help as long as it's reasonably doable... I'd love to post a series of test shots of all of these against each other someday, but that would take a lot of time so it's not something I'm prepared to do right now. I've loaned the Laowa to my brother so I can't take any "scientific" sample shots with it right now.

[e6filmuser]

[e6filmuser]

[Ray Parkhurst]

Rodenstock 75mm Apo Rodagon D M1:1

[yoyomaoz]

This page which I recently stumbled upon gives a useful over view of the resolving power of various macro lenses.

http://www.coinimaging.com/Lens_tests.html

Though I seldom shoot macro subjects I do own a few macro lenses of various brands and focal lengths - mainly because they tend to be sharp (by definition) and provide quite good bokeh even when shot at normal ranges.

One that I especially like (and own) is the Micro Nikkor AIS 55mm f2.8. I own this lens and have always thought it to be good. Now that I look at its MTF curves I see why. All I can say is WOW.

http://www.coinimaging.com/nikon_55microais.html

[kebuldaj]