Macro Close Up Options

[Bob Foster]

Hello tenmangu81,

I've not tried the NISI "close up lens" on all of the XCD lenses but from looking at posted images from many of these I'm very close to certain that this is the better solution.

If, by chance you have either the HC 80 or HC 100, these lenses, due to their optical design, may prove to work as well with extension rings as with the NISI doublet "close up lens."

Bob

[tenmangu81]

Thanks Bob !! I'll give it a try.

[boojum]

The 120 macro showed up today.  Clean.  And it works as a tele and a macro in seat-of-the-pants tests.  So that is good.  The Monday the NiSi was supposed to get here is next Monday not today.  Yes, I am going to remedial calendar classes.  I am quite happy with the lens. It will be out for a long walk and ride in town to see how it works.  From the quick, simple tests I did it works well.

Thanks to all, especially Bob for help, guidance and encouragement.

[Hareb]

@tenmangu81:

You write about Negative Supply - negative ones are supposed to be photographed. With NISI, only around 1:3 is achieved with 55 and 90 mm. 135 and 120 film becomes difficult to photograph in full format.

The rings would be better for that.

With the X2D there will still be enough detail, even if these lenses are not optimized for close-up. I have the 3.2/90 and rings: the result is very good. 20mm is not enough, it has to be the largest ring.

With the 120 macro and NISI you get about 1:1, so still a little bigger than 135 film. The ring is therefore more suitable for photographing negatives.

With the 90 and rings, two rings must be used for 1:1. The X2D recognizes this combination; on the 120 with two rings it does not recognize a lens.

[tenmangu81]

Thanks Hareb.
Until now, I have tried with an extension ring of 48mm length and my 45P. With this combination, I get a magnification of 1.26, and, accordingly, a 30x45 image for a 135 negative, which is great. It works quite well, except I get a strong vignetting, and I am thus thinking about using the XCD90 rather the 45. With this lens, I have a magnification of 0.7, a little bit too low for a 135 film, except with the X2D, that I don't have (yet), as I am working with an X1D II. The solution would be to buy an other extension ring and work with the 90, but I am not sure of the result....

[Hareb]

@tenmangu81:

I come from the era of film scanners. The very best ones like Microtek 120tf and Hasselblad Flextight scanned at 4000 dpi (Flextight couldn't do more with larger formats).

Films always have grain, a Tri-X a lot.

I say this because an X1D II still has more resolution than these scanners. It can resolve more than the films provide. When I didn't have the X2D yet, I photographed my films with an Olympus PenF with 20 MB and got extremely nice results. Especially with the 50mm macro for 135 film.

However, the autofocus lens annoyed me a bit because it focused with drive per wire and the step width sometimes wasn't exactly right. That's why I adapted a Canon FD 3.5/50 mm macro. The results were very good.

This Canon can be adapted to the Hasselblad with a Novoflex adapter. You can get both together for less than 300 CHF. The lens hardly vignettes on the Hasselblad and can be used with the 50 mm ring up to a scale of 1:1.2, which corresponds to 23x31 mm. Focusing is very easy and the resolution is sufficient for every film.

The example photo is from the X2D without cropping, the vignetting is at the edge. I didn't do any editing. The scale is worn so that you can clearly see the level of detail: completely sufficient for film reproductions.

[Hareb]

The photo was loaded in its original size. Here again reduced in size.

[tenmangu81]

Thanks Hareb, I'll have a look at that.

[Hareb]

@tenmangu81:

Negative Supply: if you have the film carrier basic, there could be a problem with the FD 3.5/50 mm, because the shooting distance is quite small and you can no longer open the carrier easily. Then you should take the Canon FD 4/100 macro, so the distance is greater. The quality corresponds to 3.5/50 (I have both). The FD 4/100 has very little more vignette, but with the 135 film there is still some leftover from the 4:3 ratio of the X1D.

If you have the carrier with the wheel, it fits well. Then you can work with both Canon. With the 4/100 with the 50 mm ring you only get 1:1 instead of 1.2:1 like with the 3.5/50. That doesn't bother me because the X1D has enough resolution and you still have some room for precise alignment.

An additional small ring also brings the FD 100 to 1.2:1.

I use both FDs at aperture 8 because the field of focus is very small and the film may bulge a bit. Aperture 11 is at the limit where diffraction becomes visible.

[JCM-Photos]

Scanner quality is not only a matter of ppi but also how the film is held flat, what points to wet mount drum scanning on devices like Heidelberg or similar.

For my digital camera scanning I simply use the negative carrier of my old durst enlarger on a flat led tablet with masks., I mount the camera (D850) on the enlarger column (without the enlarger head).
And I use the  fantastic Micro Nikkor 200 AFD what gives a lot of free working süace above the film.

When I am in a hurry far from the enlarger, and only for 35mm film,  I simply use the Nikon D850 with an old Nikon automatic bellow (with Nikon electric release adapter) and matched film repro set with the Micro Nikkor AIS 55mm an a tripod. On a second tripod in front of the camera I mount a Rotolight neo LED flash with diffuser.

[Hareb]

I also used the negative carrier from my enlarger.

I made mistakes because when I took a photo, the light went in the other direction: when I enlarged it, the light came from above, passed through a grained anti-Newton glass and then through the film. Its image side is facing away from the lamp (always image layer to image layer).

If you take photos with the camera without adjusting, the carrier layer of the film is on the lens side and not the better image layer. The sharpness is further reduced by the anti-Newton glass, which is closest to the lens.

The best accessory for this purpose is the "Kaiser Fototechnik Kaiser FilmCopy Vario" with extra anti-Newton glass. It is heavy enough that it doesn't slip when changing images and the flatness is exactly like the negative carrier.

The antinewton glass should be on the lightbox side and the film should have the image layer on the camera side.

Drum scanners like the Heidelberg are not for private users: extremely expensive, oily and difficult to use. Mikrotek 120tf has a very good image stage with anti-Newton glass, the Flextight has a curvature that results in perfect flatness. Both have a density range of almost 4. The Flextight is very expensive and often requires maintenance. They are hardly available anymore and difficult to connect (firewire).

The results from the camera are very similar and good enough. It's much faster, but you have to remove the dust yourself. However, if you have an enlarger, you should have the accessories for dust-free work.

[mikaelo67]

I have posted this before. But for scanning negatives I use the 907x with the Hbl 120mm Macro. A negative supply light source and their negative holder. With this setup I can scan up to 6x6 negatives without problems and with great results. I used to use The Epson 850. This setup produces much better results imo.