NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Akira on April 11, 2020, 06:34:53
-
I found a couple of 120 size RTP II films that recorded some UV flower images in 6x6 format. I got a 6x6 film holer for the LPL enlarger to hold the frame flat. But currently I don't have any lens suitable for digitizing the images.
The largest possible magnification factor would be 1/2.33 when the frame is shot with a full-frame camera (56 / 24 = 2.33). So, a Micro Nikkor 55mm should do the job without an extension tube.
However, I've heard that the Ais Micro 55/2.8 suffers from hotspot at a certain magnification at a certain lighting condition, if I remember correctly. So, I'm looking at an Ai or K 55mm/f3.5. I'm using the lens with Sigma fp via Novoflex adapter, so I'm fine either with Ai or non-Ai.
Any advice or share of experiences would be appreciated.
-
It will interesting to hear any experiences with the hotspot/flare of the 55/2.8. I haven't owned a 55/2.8 in digital times, but always think I'd like to have one for the jobs that the Zeiss 50/2Makro (big and heavy) or Nikon Micro 55/3.5 (no floating elements) fall short on.
I can offer the [common] knowledge that the 55/3.5 K/Ai is optimized for 1:10, and detail rendering performance falls off outside that magnification. What is acceptable for given job is up to the user, of course. I think it'd be a close contest between the 55/3.5 K/Ai and a mid-line scanner such as my Epson V600.
-
I used 55mm f2.8 on D300 for reproducing 35mm negative and it worked fine. I do not notice any flare issue, but to be honest, I have not used it much during 20 years of the ownership :) If you know how to reproduce the flare issue, let me know and I can do testing.
Cheers,
Zang
-
I use the micro 55mm f/2.8 regularly and have never noticed any hotspot or other undesirable traits, I regard it as my go to lens at that focal length, unless I need the 50mm 1.4D. That is with D1, D1x, D200, D200IR, D200 Full Spectrum, D300S, D3 and D800. It replaced my Micro 60mm f/2.8 AF which I disposed of on fleabay.
-
I can offer the [common] knowledge that the 55/3.5 K/Ai is optimized for 1:10, and detail rendering performance falls off outside that magnification. What is acceptable for given job is up to the user, of course. I think it'd be a close contest between the 55/3.5 K/Ai and a mid-line scanner such as my Epson V600.
it is true the 55/3.5 is optimised for 1:10, but the drop-off on either side is not great. Stopping down should fix any issues, I imagine the shots would be taken around f/8 for best performance, it also gives a little more DoF which helps if the film is not perfectly flat.
-
Thank you, Keith, Zang, Robert and Roland, for sharing your experiences and info!
The flare issue was reported by the pro-phogog friend of mien who is experienced in product photography. I asked about the issue again, and he says the 55/2.8 Micro tends to flare slightly when a flash is set in a slightly agains-the-light position. I'm concerned about that because copying slide film is essentially an unavoidably inherent contrasty against-the-light situation.
In this case, the sharpness and even image quality only within the 24x24mm area on a full-frame format, so the fall-off of 55/3.5 could be tolerable, if it doesn't suffer from the flare issue.
-
I can confirm the f/2.8 is more susceptible to flare than its slower f/3.5 sibling.
-
A bit off-topic, but ... despite some minor non-optical drawbacks, I like the first 'AF' 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor because it is so versatile.
https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/1stafnikkor/AF55mmmicro.htm
-
Akira,
From another side, the way I did the lighting was, I used a LED panel placed away from the back side of the negative. Additionally, I put a piece of white plastic shopping bag in between. The light was pretty soft and even.
Thanks,
Zang
-
Thank you, Birna, John and, again, Zang, for the confirmation and suggestions.
So, 55/2.8 seems to be avoided at least for the purpose. I liked the concept of the AF version with the simpler optical construction and the ability to go up to 1:1, but I'm not sure if the flare issue is addressed.
I'm going to use iPad with the lightbox app I found as the light source. I need to keep some distance between the screen and the slide and put some sort of diffuser inbetween to erase the grid pattern which is otherwise clearly projected onto the transparency.
-
So, 55/2.8 seems to be avoided at least for the purpose. I liked the concept of the AF version with the simpler optical construction and the ability to go up to 1:1, but I'm not sure if the flare issue is addressed.
I am not aware of a flare issue with my 55/2.8 AF. Does a great job. Use it a lot with flash photography. For copy of slides I used the 105/2.8 in order to get one slide per photo, and a Huion LB4 Led Light Pad as light source. That has an advantage to put the slides on the pad.
-
I am not aware of a flare issue with my 55/2.8 AF. Does a great job. Use it a lot with flash photography. For copy of slides I used the 105/2.8 in order to get one slide per photo, and a Huion LB4 Led Light Pad as light source. That has an advantage to put the slides on the pad.
Thank you for the suggestion. I found that the LPL negative carrier holds the trasparency about 1.5cm above its bottom (iPad screen), which will keep the grid pattern out of the DOF and offer enough room and space for a diffuser.
I thought about an EL-Nikkor 50, 75 or 80mm for the purpose, but a Micro Nikkor can be used for different purposes after the slide copy work is done.
Even in Japan, the AF Micro 55/2.8 is rarely seen in the second-hand market, and strolling around in Tokyo to find one under current situation isn't a good idea.
On the other hand, I do know a good and reliable source to get a near-mint Ai 55/3.5. ;)
-
You could also consider a Coolscan 9000?
For my I have dedicated glass holder for 120 film. It works very well but some years ago I used it.
It is now a discontinued scanner and maybe you can find a cheap one in Tokyo? …..I have not followed prices…...maybe they have dropped as I don't think many use them today.
Another option is that you know someone that has a scanner......and can scan the film strip you have. If it is just one roll of film...
-
The prices of Nikon's late model Coolscan scanners are holding well and if anything are actually going up; likewise major accessories such as the SF-210 bulk slide scanner.
I agree that the Coolscan 9000 (or the 8000) would be a good option to scan the 120 film that Akira has.
You could also consider a Coolscan 9000?
For my I have dedicated glass holder for 120 film. It works very well but some years ago I used it.
It is now a discontinued scanner and maybe you can find a cheap one in Tokyo? …..I have not followed prices…...maybe they have dropped as I don't think many use them today.
Another option is that you know someone that has a scanner......and can scan the film strip you have. If it is just one roll of film...
-
MEPER and Hugh, thank you for the suggestion.
Film scanner would be handy, but I don't see any further use of it at all after having scanned 6-7 frames from three rolls of 120 films... My rabbit hutch wouldn't allow to store a big thingy like a flatbed scanner. ::)
-
MEPER and Hugh, thank you for the suggestion.
Film scanner would be handy, but I don't see any further use of it at all after having scanned 6-7 frames from three rolls of 120 films... My rabbit hutch wouldn't allow to store a big thingy like a flatbed scanner. ::)
Recently, I looked at prices for the Coolscan 9000 on the used market, on the -false- impression that "nobody uses flatbed scanners anymore...". When I found out that they still go between 3500€ and 5000€, my urge for buying one rapidly dissipated.
Ciao from Massimo
-
Ok.....think I got my for below 3k Euro new many years ago and then I got additional glass holder for 120 film.
If it was 1k Euro today it could have been an option. But maybe there is a small market to digitize peoples old film. The very old films from the "folder camera time" was usually 120 film.
If Akira knew a person that was living relative close that has a 120 film scanner then it would be an option when it is only a few frames to be scanned. Maybe a company (photo shop) also sell a scanning service.
But I know it is more fun to do it your self and always fun to get a new lens :-)
-
Massimo and MEPER, thank you for info and suggestions.
At first, I looked for a shop that offered scanning 6x6 transparencies. It turned out that scanning one frame will cost 5,500 JPY (for 1600x1600 pixel size)! That's why I decided on the DIY way. A dedicated MF scanner is out of question. I also wonder if there is driver software compatible with Win10. :o
-
Akira, the 55mm f/3.5 solution is probably the least expensive and more compact.
Another alternative:
If you have access to a decent flat bed scanner such as an Epson V series scanner (V500, V550, V700, V750, V800, V850, etc....) it might be worth while trying that solution. With 120 square images (56mm x 56mm) the Epson V series (or Canon equivalents) would deliver adequate resolution. But not so compact for a small house or apartment.
-
Akira, very little problems running scanners under Win10. For the Nikon scanners, the factory software (Nikonscan) does work well. Vuescan is another option, but the Pro version costs a few bob. Silverfast is in another league as far as price is concerned, but results tend to be excellent.
There are lots of information online how to install Nikonscan under Win7/10. If you use a Firewire scanner such as LS-4000/8000/9000, you probably will need a Firewire card too. I'm using an Express card (eXagerate) on my Thinkpads in the W-series.
As you only need a few images in 120 format to be scanned, I suggest you appeal to local friends/photo enthusiasts to scan them for you. Or maybe local photo shops can offer such service for a small fee?
It would a pity not to have those nice RTP images preserved and shown on the net.
-
Massimo and MEPER, thank you for info and suggestions.
At first, I looked for a shop that offered scanning 6x6 transparencies. It turned out that scanning one frame will cost 5,500 JPY (for 1600x1600 pixel size)! That's why I decided on the DIY way. A dedicated MF scanner is out of question. I also wonder if there is driver software compatible with Win10. :o
What I can read on the web the CS-9000 should work with Win10. Maybe a Firewire to USB adapter is needed. My has Firewire interface. I can see that even a CS-5000 is very expensive on the used market. I remember the large 8000 DPI scanners like Imacon Flextight 848 was cheap when film market was "falling down". Maybe this is not the case anymore.
Will you use your iPad as light table? ….else small batteridriven cheap light tables exists to ensure a uniform/daylight temperature. I have a very small one (brand is Dörr) which can run with batteries or a 9V adapter can be used. Then you also need a good optical glass to keep the 120 film flat…..or at least put the 120 film in a frame that can hold it almost flat. Maybe tape it around the edges.
-
If you can get an AI 55mm f/3.5 , go for it. It should be possible to resolve the cloudy grain of the color film out to the edge with suitable setting ~ f/5.6 - f/8 . You did not mention your camera, but for 6x6 slides a 36Mpix camera or more may be desirable.
If you happen to have a clear screen LCD like older I-MAC with suitable screen pixel pitch available for your targeted 1: 2.333 size reduction, you can run a similar test as in this thread https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=224.msg4216#msg4216
where 1:1 was tested using a 'retina' screen.
It may be possible that the current AF-S 60mm f/2.8 is sharper at 1:2.333. My expectation is, that it is not crucially sharper and the sharpness difference to the 55mm f/3.5 may not matter.
-
I guess it should also be possible to take overlapping cropped images and then stitch it together using some dedicated software?
Then the setting should be quite manuel to keep exact exposure / white balance in every cropped image.
A repro setup would be nice for that kind of work.
-
Given the quality of any versions of the Nikon 55mm f/3.5 micro lenses, the current second hand prices must just about make it the Nikon S/H lens bargain buy with acceptable quality user lenses still around for under $US100, and maybe just a little more if they also come with the likes of a M2 or PK13 extension tube that let the lens achieve 1:1 magnification.
If buying an LED panel, make sure that it does not have a pattern of hot spots around each of the photo diode sites that plague the cheaper panels - else your image will have a background mottling due to these hot spots. A thick diffuser and keeping some distance between the panel and the negative/transparency helps reduce this effect. Alternatively expect to pay more for a panel that does not suffer from this this effect.
-
Given the quality of any versions of the Nikon 55mm f/3.5 micro lenses, the current second hand prices must just about make it the Nikon S/H lens bargain buy with acceptable quality user lenses still around for under $US100, and maybe just a little more if they also come with the likes of a M2 or PK13 extension tube that let the lens achieve 1:1 magnification.
...
For 6x6 slide duplication, 1:1 magnification is too much, maybe a pk-11 tube would be sufficient. Actual dimensions of a "6x6" slide are 56x56 millimeters.
PK-11 is an 8 mm extension, PK-13 is 27.5 mm
As I was writing, I did a little testing with a FF camera and the uNikkor 55mm/2.8, and the 55/3.5. The net result is that you don't need any extension tubes to photograph a 56x56 mm area, the focusing helicoid gives you enough reach. At minimum focussing distanceyou have a 1:2 reproduction rate, which accounts for a 48x72mm area, slashing away 8 mm off of the slide.
Ciao from Massimo
-
Here are the visual results of my tests
Photo 1: taken at an approximate distance of 26 cm (uNikkor 55mm/3.5)
Photo 2: taken at minimum fosussing distance, that is 0,241m (uNikkor 55mm/3.5)
Photo 3: the three uNikkors used, all focussed at minimum focussing distance (the 55/2.8 focusses down to only 25 cm)
Camera used: Nikon Z6 + FTZ
Notice that at minimum focussing distance, the area is 47x72 mm, reflecting the theoretical result of 48x72. I think the Z6 sensor is 23.9 mm, so this maybe accounts for the missing millimeter.
Notice too (photo 1) the small unevenness on L side: that's probably me not holding the camera exactly perpendicular to the sheet of paper. The lens by itself would be perfectly correct up to the corners of the image. Photos taken wide open (f/3.5). In photo 2, I was more careful and the millimeter grid is straight and all in focus.
-
As usual we have Rolands pages with information on the F-Nikkor lenses here:
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#55Micro
All of the 55mm Micro nikkors are wonderful lenses, the 55mm f/2.8 has CRC so a personal favorite ;)
I have had most of them, Pre-Ai, Ai, AF etc. ,,,
-
Hugh, Birna, MEPER and Bernard,
Thank you for your further inputs! Unfortunately, any scanner (film or flatbed) won't be my choice. I can think of no friend who owns any of these.
I use Sigma fp, a 24MP full-frame camera, for this copy work.
I know that there are couple of different versions of 55/2.8 even except for the AF one. The latest one with SIC may not suffer from the flare issue, but I'm leaning toward an Ai 55/3.5.
Massimo, thank you for taking time to make sample images. As I mentioned in my initial post, I only need x1/2.33 magnification to copy 6x6 slides with a full-frame camera (56/24=1.233...). So I don't need any extension tube. I have an M2 tube if I need.
Erik, yes, I'm well aware of Roland's tour-de-force website. :) He will be a big help.
I won't waste these UV images shot on the RTP II film in any way!
-
Photo 3: the three uNikkors used, all focussed at minimum focussing distance (the 55/2.8 focusses down to only 25 cm)
The 55/2.8 has CRC (floating elements), as the lens focuses close the focal length actually increases which is why the focus distance is slightly longer than the 55/3.5 at the same image magnification.
The longer focal length could be a problem when used with the PK-13 extension tube. The PK-13 is 27.5mm long (half 55mm) and is designed for 55mm micro lenses to enable them to focus from 1:2 to 1:1. The 55/2.8 has focal length longer than 55mm at close range, so the PK-13 wouldn't have enough extension to give 1:1 magnification. To compensate for the longer focal length, the 55/2.8 actually focuses slightly beyond 1:2, to 1:1.9, so it can get to 1:1 with the PK-13. So by itself, the 55/2.8 as slightly longer working distance and greater magnification than the 55/3.5 models.
-
I know that there are couple of different versions of 55/2.8 even except for the AF one. The latest one with SIC may not suffer from the flare issue, but I'm leaning toward an Ai 55/3.5.
There appear to be three different serial number blocks for the AIS 55/2.8:
1. 179041 - 600xxx from 1979 - 2000?
2. 700001 - 752xxx from 2001 - 2005?
3. 800001 - 813xxx and counting, from 2006
There are no differences between these series that I can see, maybe Ric would spot changes when they are taken apart for repair. SIC coating was probably introduced somewhere near the start of series 2. When comparing the coatings with the earlier NIC coatings, the difference is not great, some surfaces are more yellow-green (common for SIC coatings), but overall they look similar. The SIC coating does not solve the flare problems when shooting into strong light. The only solution is to keep strong lights out of the image frame, or to block the sun behind a tree branch etc.
The AF 55/2.8 micro has the same optical design as the AIS model, but the focus range is extended all the way to 1:1 (the AIS model gets to 1:1.9). It's possible the spacing between the floating elements was adjusted to work better for the range from infinity ~ 1:1, compared to infinity ~ 1:1.9 for the AIS model, so that corrections near 1:2 may be slightly different between the two lenses. I would expect the AF version to have the same flare issues as the AIS version.
-
I've heard that the variation of 55/2.8 is related to the aperture lever. The aperture lever for the first variant was a single unit, and the one for the second variant had a two-piece system. I don't know why Nikon changed it.
And then, they dumped the two-piece system and returned to the single unit. Allegedly, the two-piece lever didn't synchronize with the 10 fps continuous shooting with F2H (not D2H!).
-
Maybe Ric can confirm this. I wonder if the two-piece aperture lever is the reason for the 7xxxxx serial number block? Usually minor internal changes like this are "silent", there is no obvious difference externally.
-
Maybe Ric can confirm this. I wonder if the two-piece aperture lever is the reason for the 7xxxxx serial number block? Usually minor internal changes like this are "silent", there is no obvious difference externally.
Or Erik would.
The third block of "2006 serial number" is not unique to 55/2.8 Micro, so I would doubt if the difference between three blocks (including 2006 serial) is related to this internal variation.
-
The 55/2.8 has CRC (floating elements), as the lens focuses close the focal length actually increases which is why the focus distance is slightly longer than the 55/3.5 at the same image magnification.
The longer focal length could be a problem when used with the PK-13 extension tube. The PK-13 is 27.5mm long (half 55mm) and is designed for 55mm micro lenses to enable them to focus from 1:2 to 1:1. The 55/2.8 has focal length longer than 55mm at close range, so the PK-13 wouldn't have enough extension to give 1:1 magnification. To compensate for the longer focal length, the 55/2.8 actually focuses slightly beyond 1:2, to 1:1.9, so it can get to 1:1 with the PK-13. So by itself, the 55/2.8 as slightly longer working distance and greater magnification than the 55/3.5 models.
Thanks Ronald!
This part is what I was referring to, well explained ;)
Sure let's see if we collectively can uncover these differences, there is also the oily aperture blade issue so many have encountered :o could these two be interconnected?
I didn't fully understand the difference with the aperture leaver, I'll have to read it again ;)
-
There appear to be three different serial number blocks for the AIS 55/2.8:
1. 179041 - 600xxx from 1979 - 2000?
2. 700001 - 752xxx from 2001 - 2005?
3. 800001 - 813xxx and counting, from 2006
My sample of the 55/2.8 is from the first batch, serial # 469792, bought new in mid-1980 (my first Nikon lens!). A real sales burst took place for this lens, about 300K pieces in the first year (120K in the remaining 10 years). The two other depicted lenses are older but much less used, and they cost me near to nothing (40 to 60€ each, bought used 2-3 yrs ago). Paint is stripping off of the uNikkor/2.8, but lenses and iris are still perfect, performance is still great after tens of thousands of actuations.
I also have another sample, 55mm/3.5 AI (third batch in the AI group on your webpage), with a serial # that's only 9 numbers away from the sample in your photo: 1038261 vs 1038270 !!!
Ciao from Massimo
-
BTW, no problem with the oily blades that some have encountered, I suspect this comes from leaving the gear in a car's trunk under the sun!
I have never seen samples from the second batch. Mine (first batch) has a single-piece aperture lever.
Ciao from Massimo
-
Just a couple of weeks ago I was looking for the solution in the same game. To copy my negative transparencies.
At first I was also dreaming about having a dedicated scanner but prices of these machines left me searching for another way.
Then I came upon one interesting blog site written by one Italian guy (www.addicted2light.com) and his articles “How to scan films using a digital camera” and especially “Best film scanner: Canon 5D Mark II vs Drum scanner vs Epson V700”. Maybe you will want to check it also.
I’m happy now with the same setup: Nikkor P-auto 55 3.5 :)