Ai Micro 55mm/f3.5 for copying 6x6 slides

[mxbianco]

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

[MEPER]

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 :-)

[Akira]

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.   

[Hugh_3170]

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.

[Birna Rørslett]

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.

[MEPER]

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.   

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.   

[Bernard Delley]

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.

[MEPER]

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.

[Hugh_3170]

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.

[mxbianco]

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

[mxbianco]

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.

[Erik Lund]

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. ,,,

[Akira]

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!

[Roland Vink]

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.

[Roland Vink]

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.