Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2022 · Highest performing macro lens for reproduction ratios below 0.5x

  
 
mjm6
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Highest performing macro lens for reproduction ratios below 0.5x


All,

I'm currently working with a GFX50R and a good Makro Symmar line scan lens (5.9/120 -0060) for copy stand reproduction work of film (I'm scanning all my 4x5 film and going forward, I'll be scanning and also shooting 120 film, 6x6 and 6x17).

My current setup has reproduction ratios from -0.37 (4x5) to about -0.59 (120) with the 50R.

I'm getting the X-T5 and I felt I should test the camera against the 50R for the copy work. No it won't compete with the 50R in single shot. It may start to do so in pixel shift mode since it does actually do a 20-shot assembly with 1/2 pixel shifting.

However, the biggest difference might be in the grain ailasing. Since the 50R has a well fill ratio fo about 70%, it does undersample the source. This can lead to better color channel seperation and great color, but it also can cause accentuation of the film grain, so it may be a mixed blessing.

Hence, the reason I want to see what I can get from the XT5 with a good lens and the pixel shift approach...

To that end, I am looking at reproduction ratios from -0.18 (4x5) to about -0.28 (120) for the lens. That's nowhere near the traditional point that a lot of macro lenses are optimized for (which is in the -0.5 to 1.0 range), and I haven't found any testing that covers a range of reproduction ratio tests. Most just cover at the minimum focus reproduction ratio (and I presume the MTFs from Fujifilm aren't tested anywhere near the macro range).

In addition to the Fujifim lenses there are a few third-part lenses (Samyang, Laowa for starters) that would be suitable candidates.

I'm looking for recommendations on the best ones to consider for testing...I'm expecting the 80mm is superior to the 60mm and the 30mm will probably not have anywhere near as flat of a field as either of these two, so it wold be the worst of the three...

In the industrail lenses, there is a Makro Symmar 5.9/120 -0061 that is optimized around -0.33 reproduction ratio, so it is probably good for the 120 negatives but possibly far enough out of optimized for the 4x5 that it probably wouldn't be a good candidate for that size original. Those lenses aren't inexpensive, so I'm inclined to put the money to an 80mm macro if it competes well anyway.

Does anyone have suggestions or experience with others that I could be looking into? Thanks.



Nov 18, 2022 at 01:22 PM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Highest performing macro lens for reproduction ratios below 0.5x


The absolute best one you can buy would likely be the Rodenstock 105mm f/5.6 Macro Float lens with a manually adjustable floating element optimizing it for between 1:3 and 3:1. You do need a separate macro focusing bellows system for that lens. The Contax 645 120mm f/4 Macro is very very good with internal floating elements that optimize it from infinity to 1:1 and adapts well to the GFX system with the Fringer adapter. The Contax might be a tick behind the Rodenstock but most people will never tell the difference plus it's a lot less coin and far easier to use. But, if you are inclined to splurge, the exchange rate in the U.K. buying from Linhof Studios has never been better with that Rodie coming in at around $4800 or so while the Contax can be had for between $800 and a grand plus $700 for the Fringer.


Nov 18, 2022 at 02:09 PM
mjm6
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Highest performing macro lens for reproduction ratios below 0.5x


Yes, the Rodie is supposed to be great, but it doesn't cover the magnification range that I need, so it probably doesn't make sense to spend that kind of money.

There is a line scan Makro Symmar that is optimized at -.033 so it is close to the magnification I need for the 120 negatives and I can get one for about $500 or so. It is likely to be effectively the equal to the Rodie since neither one is exactly on the target (-0.28 should be needed for the 6x6 negs).

I've been reading about the Laowa 65mm APO macro and it seems to be a great option, better than the Fuji 60mm and probbaly better than the Fuji 80mm as well. The MTFs are very good (and are shown for several magnifications) and the reviews appear to be ver strong for the lens. I'm not sure how it will do at the target -0.28 reproduction ratio that I need but it's probably a strong contender. For about $400, it would be an easy lens to afford as well.




Nov 18, 2022 at 04:30 PM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Highest performing macro lens for reproduction ratios below 0.5x


For the GFX, the Rodenstock fully covers the range you're looking for from about 1:3 for 4x5 to about 1.2:1 for 35mm, and yeah, I know it's expensive, but there's really nothing like it. It rivals the scans from my Howtek HR8000 when attached to a GFX100s. Even if you're a bit off the end of the range for the adjustable floating elements, you really can't see it


Nov 18, 2022 at 04:51 PM
mjm6
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Highest performing macro lens for reproduction ratios below 0.5x


Back in the day, I had a Colorgetter Falcon drum scanner, so I understand what you are saying with this.

My experience with the CG scanner is also why I am intersted in the overscanning impact that the pixel shift on the new Fujifilm XT5 could possibly do. Changing the sampling aperture with the drum scanner showed a remarkable impact on the sense of grain and the smoothness of the overall scan (plus tradeoffs with sharpness) and I'm interested in how I can use the different camera to achieve similar impacts in the scans.



Nov 18, 2022 at 05:17 PM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Highest performing macro lens for reproduction ratios below 0.5x


mjm6 wrote:
Back in the day, I had a Colorgetter Falcon drum scanner, so I understand what you are saying with this.

My experience with the CG scanner is also why I am intersted in the overscanning impact that the pixel shift on the new Fujifilm XT5 could possibly do. Changing the sampling aperture with the drum scanner showed a remarkable impact on the sense of grain and the smoothness of the overall scan (plus tradeoffs with sharpness) and I'm interested in how I can use the different camera to achieve similar impacts in the scans.


This is interesting because it's a part of the reason I went with the Rodenstock. I already had a Novoflex bellows system that I was using reversed enlarging lenses on with pretty good success - at least for shooting macro images. When I got the 100s in the spring I tried scanning film using a converted Beseler 45 enlarger, and the Sigma 70mm ART macro on the 100s, and while the results were okay, they were not stunning, and that's a pretty darned good lens. Through reading about a bunch of different options I came across the Rodenstock, and at first I balked at the price, but then I found it at Linhof Studios for a full three grand less than B&H was hawking it for (so much for B&H have the best prices) and bit the bullet, and every time I use that lens I'm utterly amazed at the results.

But part of what led me to that was also the fact that at some point in the future, Aztek will not be around or they won't have any parts left for the Howteks and it'll be the end of the line for those. I wanted something that would and could compete with the drum down the line, or just when I don't feel like mounting film.

It's possible that the Laowa 2X Macro might be sufficient for you but there's only one way to find out. The biggest hurdle for doing this is keeping the film flat and keeping perfectly parallel to the sensor. Here's what seems to be working for me, but others have other solutions too. I'm using the aforementioned Beseler 45 enlarger where I've taken all the enlarger stuff off and bolted a Manfrotto 410 gear head to. I have a Just/Normlicht 5000K lightbox under that and had a roughly 8x10-ish piece of 3/16th glass cut to put on top of the lightbox. I found that there was just a bit of sag in the plexiglass in the box that made it hard to keep film flat. Then I use the Clinometer app in my phone to measure the glass, which I'm taping the film to, and then the Manfrotto to match those measurements to the camera and lens, which, on the Novoflex, are independently adjustable. Having that one tenth of a degree accuracy with Clinometer in the phone seems to work well, but, as always, focusing accurately at 1:1 and closer is a challenge that can take some trial and error to get perfect. And you can't really stop down to cover slight errors as you're already two stops down at 1:1 and into diffraction territory even wide open. Not much, but barely. You can go to f/8 but at 1:1 that's f/16 and you do see the degradation at that point. On some film it matters and with other film it won't, depending on the film and the subject matter.




Nov 18, 2022 at 06:45 PM





FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.