NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Roland Vink on December 30, 2022, 04:13:17
-
I recently finished sorting and cataloging all my old slides. Most were taken between 1994 to 2013 on FE2 and FM3a cameras with AI and AIS lenses on Fuji Provia and Velvia films, a number of Kodak E100 type films and a few others. I took notes for most pictures including the camera, lens, aperture, shutter, exposure compensation, subject and date - my manual exif data :). Out of each roll I would usually get 38 pictures - frames 1 to 36, plus frame 0 and E (extra, or no 37). On average I kept about 10 slides from each roll. A lot of pictures were discarded due to focus errors, over or under-exposure (slide film is very unforgiving), camera shake, bad framing, or the picture just wasn't interesting.
All my notes have now been transferred to computer, so I was able to get some statistics. Over that 20 year period I have kept over 2500 pictures. My most commonly used lenses are:
E 75-150/3.5: 12.1%
AI 50/1.8: 10.7%
AIS 135/2.8: 7.6%
AIS 55/2.8 micro: 7.4%
AI 20/3.5 6.5%
AF 105/2.8 micro 6.2%
AIS 200/4 micro 5.8%
AIS 28/2.8 5.2%
AIS 85/2 4.1%
AIS 105/4 micro 4.1%
AI 105/2.5 3.7%
E 100/2.8 3.1%
AIS 35/1.4 2.2%
AIS 50/1.4 2.0%
I obviously have a preference for short telephotos and macro lenses. The 135/2.8 got a lot of use in the early days due to its relatively fast speed, compact size and hand-hold-ability (longer focal lengths are harder to hold steady enough to frame accurately). Later I switched to the 75-150 due to its versatility - it has good speed, covers a very useful range of focal lengths, focuses fairly close and is compact. It's a shame there are no modern lenses like it. I also use standard lenses a lot - my AI 50/1.8 and 55/2.8 micro have seen a lot of use. I don't use 35mm lenses much, I have nothing against this focal length but my kit is usually based around a standard lens plus a wide and telephoto, and 35mm just doesn't fit in being too close to 50mm. At the wide end my favorites are the AIS 28/2.8 which is comfortably wide, or the AI 20/3.5 if I want a more dramatic image. I have a lot of other lenses which have not been used much, maybe it is time to clear some of them out...
My most used apertures are spread fairly evenly between f/5.6 - f/11, the use of faster and slower apertures drops off rapidly from this peak. I tend to use these moderate to smallish apertures because I did a lot of macro and landscape work, and also it helps to hide focus errors :o :) I do have some fast lenses such as my 35/1.4 and 55/1.2 which are fun to use on occasion.
My shutter speed is mostly 1/60 or 1/125, followed by 1/30 and 1/250 and then a long tail of slower shutter speeds up to several seconds, mostly due to macro and twilight photography.
Anyway, I found the process of cataloging my pictures was a useful process, I hope you find this interesting. Next task is to start scanning them...
-
Thank you Roland for providing all this very interesting information regarding the lenses and cameras you used from 1994-2013 while shooting film. I have some of these lenses and I regret that I failed to catalog the pictures I took with them in any way approaching your thoroughness. Maybe in another lifetime...
Also, was there a change in 2013 and did it have something to do with how you took pictures, something like switching to digital?
Again thanks,
Tom
-
This is tedious and time consuming work! Thank you for sharing this... I would love to see a picture (or a couple of pictures) per lens, those pictures that you like the most. I do not expect to see that for all and every of your lenses but if you can start with any of them, that would be great. And it is fine if you think it is not a good idea :) Thanks again!
-
Just curious Roland: do you propose to actually scan the sorted slides or will you photograph them using a medium to high resolution digital camera?
I recently finished sorting and cataloging all my old slides.
.............................................................
Anyway, I found the process of cataloging my pictures was a useful process, I hope you find this interesting. Next task is to start scanning them...
-
Also, was there a change in 2013 and did it have something to do with how you took pictures, something like switching to digital?
2013 was when I bought my D600 camera. Since then I have hardly shot any more film, although I recently loaded my FM3a with a fresh roll of Provia - going through all my slides reminded me of the magic of transparencies, when everything comes together right there is something about them that I don't see in my digital pictures. Although I have to add that I hardly made the best of my digital images (yet).
I continue to use the same lenses as before although I have been using my macro lenses less as I have less time for this sort of detailed work. More of my pictures are general family and holiday/landscape shots. I also used my 75-150 less as it shows more chromatic aberrations that my primes in the same range, and sunset shots have flare spot diagonally opposite the sun (reflection from the sensor) which was not present when using film.
-
Just curious Roland: do you propose to actually scan the sorted slides or will you photograph them using a medium to high resolution digital camera?
I will probably try using a digital camera, I know good results can be obtained although I don't know how it compares to using a dedicated scanner. I had a handful of slides drum scanned - the results are marvellous. I have some prints which are 36 x 49 cm and the amount of detail and colours that can be extracted from a small 24 x 36mm slide is amazing. If I can use a digital camera to get something nearly as good, I will be very pleased. But that feels like a big project, not sure when I will have time for that.
-
This is tedious and time consuming work! Thank you for sharing this... I would love to see a picture (or a couple of pictures) per lens, those pictures that you like the most. I do not expect to see that for all and every of your lenses but if you can start with any of them, that would be great. And it is fine if you think it is not a good idea :) Thanks again!
Here are a few from my drum scans, downsized from the original tiffs and slightly cropped.
Buddha with hibiscus flowers, Bali, 22 June 2001
Nikon FE2, Provia 100
Nikon AIS 55/2.8 micro, f11, 1/2 sec, EV -2/3 stop
-
Borage flowers, 22 Dec 2022
Nikon FE2, Velvia 50
Nikon AIS 200/4 micro with PK-13 tube and A2 warming filter, f/11, 1/2 sec, EV -2/3 stop
-
Pohutukawa flower fallen on algae covered boulder, 7 Dec 1997
Nikon FE2, Velvia 50
Nikon AIS 200/4 micro, f/16, 1/2 sec, EV -1 stop
-
Fern leaf, 30 Apr 2000
Nikon FE2, Velvia 50
Nikon AIS 200/4 micro, f/8, 2 sec, EV - 1/3 stop
The AIS 200/4 micro is not among the most highly rated lenses (it would have benefited from ED glass), but many of my best pictures were taken with this lens.
-
Wonderful picture quality and beautiful photos. Thanks Roland, very much appreciated!
-
Its lovely to see these examples of your work Roland
And a sizeable task, both the sift/sort and also compiling such a useful database
I obviously have a preference for short telephotos and macro lenses....
It could be said that outside of macro lenses, the longest you used was 150mm
I have the opposite tendancy and often wander around with just a 300mm (sometimes with a TC14 attached). Even with this, I've managed to take several landscapes & joiners I'm very pleased with
-
Yes, the longest lens I regularly used was my AIS 200/4 micro, which was always used on a tripod. Among the many lenses I have, the AIS 135/2.8 and E 75-150/3.5 are the longest I can comfortably hand-hold. With longer lenses even if the shutter speed is fast enough to avoid camera-shake it is difficult to frame the subject accurately, I'm always struggling to aim the lens precisely, it keeps drifting slightly to one side or another. Plus these lenses are compact and will fit inside my Lowepro Orion Mini, which is big enough to take my camera with a three small lenses - wide, standard and short tele (one of which is usually a macro). This lets me cover almost anything I want to photograph.
I do have longer lenses, including a non-macro AIS 200/4. This is the same size as the E 75-150 but is much less versatile so doesn't see enough use to make my top list. I used to have an AIS 300/4.5 IFED but found this focal length awkward - not long enough for birds and too long for most other things. I tried several Sigma and Tokina 400/5.6 lenses before settling on a non-IF AI 400/5.6 ED. It was clearly the sharpest of the 400mm lenses I tried. Without VR or IBIS these longer lenses need to be used from a tripod, which means a dedicated photographic outing rather than some casual shots. Circumstances changed and I don't currently have much time for that kind of photography, so it also doesn't make the top of my list.
-
Very interesting to see the list of your used lenses! Good luck with the digital processing.
-
Roland, do you own a drum scanner or did you order someone to scan the slides for you?
-
I don't own a drum scanner, they are very expensive. There is a used one on eBay for $5000 USD. I imagine they are not easy to use and the scanning process takes a long time. I had a few of my best images scanned professionally. I will, eventually, like to find a quicker, more affordable, and practical way of scanning the rest of my images to the best possible quality, but I can't see that happening for a while yet.
-
I see... Then using digital cameras is another handy option. I can't imagine the results from the cameras are up to those from a drum scanner, but they are really good as well. I did a home made copier for my negatives and it works pretty well. Unfortunately, I lost my slides when I moved from Eastern Europe to Canada more than a decade ago. I am currently modifying my negative copier and will continue scanning the rest of my negatives. I'll share some results when it is done.
-
Many years ago, I bought a Minolta Scan Dual III film/slide scanner.
It was helpful as it let me scan 35mm and 6x7 film & slides and it didn't cost too much at the time
However the results from one or two few negs & slides weren't as good quality as the 12x16" prints i'd made or the professional scans I'd had done from the same sources. This may partly have been caused by my limited PP skills.
Nowadays I understand many of these old used scanners are in demand again, as people butcher them to remove the lenses to use for macro work!
The image below was taken on Kodak Technical Pan (ISO 25 and some of the most detailed B&W negs I ever managed) in Morocco in 1984.
I had a beautiful print of it, but the scan doesn't seem to quite be in the same league. I suspect the wide contrast range was beyond my PP skills
-
This is very interesting with those beautiful images to boot. Thank you for sharing it. Even thou I have no slides to scan, I'll follow up with interest.
-
Thank you Roland for your scans and insight into you lens use using 'manual' EXIF data!
I have thousands of clinical slides which I want to scan but have yet to work out a quick way. I have experimented with Coolscan 5000ED, Epson V800, D850 with micro 60mm and ES-2. For film I have a Pakon F135.
For me the Coolscan gives the best results albeit slow and the software still works with Windows 10 with initial workarounds. The V800 takes just as long, quality not great and has too many issues for me with warped and variable thickness slides as there is no auto focus and I didn't want to mess around with wet mounting. The D850 is really fast but the results are not as good (although probably good enough for work - not for private photos). I also have Vuescan software which is very powerful but hard for me to get the right colours without a lot of messing around.
Here are 2 of the same slide:
(DSC_2673.jpg) with D850 and ES-2 NEF converted in NXStudio, (23.jpg) with Coolscan 5000ED with NikonScan. From 1999 in Kyoto Nikon F501, AF35-70mm on Velvia50
-
In my opinion the first image 23.jpg has far best mid-tones and details.
In the other the contrast is too high with some blown high lights?
-
My limited scanning has been with the ES-2 and a D810 or D800 with 60/2.8 Micro lens. My "technique" is simple--I've only wanted to do some photos of friends from the past. These were shot on Kodachrome and I softened the images in Lightroom. Sharper images could be done with better techniques and post processing skills but I've mainly been copying snapshots, not works of art.
Two lovely ladies:
-
but I've mainly been copying snapshots, not works of art.
These are lovely portraits.
-
Indeed. Lovely portraits, timeless beauty
-
Thanks so much.
-
Roland - Amazing images Wow!
Also interesting statistics - Thank you for sharing ;)
-
A comment inbetween scanning and lenses:
I find the Minolta 5400scanner quite good with Vuescan sioftware, but very slow, so to digitize diapositives I use the excdellently solid Olympus copying bellows with a 50mm Rodenstock Apo-something enlarging lens giving fast and accurate reults.
p.
-
A comment inbetween scanning and lenses:
I find the Minolta 5400scanner quite good with Vuescan sioftware, but very slow....
Yes I'd agree Paul.
When I got it, it was grateful for my Minolta scanner.
But over time I gradually grew discontented with the long-winded process and what seemed to be like lower quality than I was hoping for.
-
A dual approach is probably required for finding the best tradeoff to maximize quality and speed.
Personally I am using a D800/Df with the 60mm G Micro (and increasingly Z6/7 with the Z 105mm Micro) for slides with correct exposure and reasonable contrast, everything else more challenging is done with the Nikon 5000 scanner. For the former I pay close attention to optimal exposure extracting the maximum (working w histogram and profiles). It's not the fastest approach but still way quicker than a scan.
With the scanner I was able to recover completely underexposed slides from a wedding in the sixities to the extreme delight of the couple. The family had never seen these pictures before. What a joy!
Nevertheless I almost prefer to work with the NEF files than with TIFFs from the scanner.
YMMV
-
Wally, what setup do you use with Z 105mm micro ? I would guess that the longer working distance of the 105mm lens would not work with ES-2 and require some DIY for the setup.
I use a vintage PB-6 slide holder and normally a D7200 with the AF-S 60mm without bellows. I use typically picture control std, and take NEF images. With cold (<4000K) white LED illumination, WB gets color balance good enough right away in most cases, and I can simply extract the full size the jpg from the NEF (dcraw -e) and have slide copy safely on par with a Coolscan image. With the raw, I can conveniently extract detail in deep shadows that one might more forebode than see in the slide projection in a good dark room. The D7200 24 Mpixels is slightly more than the Coolscan image size from a 35mm slide. The D850 can do much more resolution, but there is not that much real detail even in a Kodchrome ISO 25 slide, so the D850 mostly provides better detail on the slide or file "grain".
The Kyoto comparison before is interesting. The scan is as expected, good. The D850+AF-S 60mm performed far below expectations: is it due to overblown picture control vivid and contrast settings ??
I attach a slide copy done with D7100 + AF-S 60mm, the Kodochrome II slide likely was taken with the AI 55mm f/3.5 lens and Nikon F2 quite a while ago.
-
Nice to see you use your 75 to 150 zoom so much Roland . That was one of my favourite lenses for years. I would often take it and a couple of wide angles, a 35 mm and 20 mm for a hike. I also used that zoom with a 4T close up lens and it made for a really nice macro lens. When I compared the optical configurations of that lens to the old 80 to 200 4.5 lens they are almost identical. I guess that’s why it was so sharp, that was a great lens but this lens has a constant 3.5 aperture, which is great for such a small zoom . I also have the 50 to 135 lens but the 75 to 150 is so nice and light and easy to carry around. Unfortunately like you say it’s not great for shooting into the sun even though it always has a lens hood attached when I’m out with it. I also put a dandelion on mine so it’s still very useable even today on my Nikon Z5, I can still control the aperture through the FTZ adapter. Regards Gerry