What lens should I buy for a copystand setup? D800

rocky_peak · Feb 25, 2014

Equipment:

Camera: Nikon D800

Copystand: undecided on
Bencher Copymate II
or Beseler CS-14 Copystand Kit
or Kaiser RS 1 / RS 2

Lighting: what's better?
a lighting kit made for the copy stand
or a flash setup (e.g. 2x AlienBees B400 in soft boxes)

Lens: ?

So far all I have bought is the camera and two primes (50mm 1.8G & 85mm 1.8G).

My objective is to digitize, in the best possible quality, hundreds of old photographs.

I had bought the 85mm 1.8G because it scored very high on DXOMark for sharpness as well as having almost no distortion & very little chromatic aberration. However it can't fill the frame with a 3x5" photo, the smallest area it can focus on is about 11.5" x 8".

What lens should I buy for this project? I would prefer not to spend a fortune, but quality is very important to me.

Would using an extension tube or bellows decrease image quality? Would using just the center of the lens cause a decrease in sharpness or introduce distortion / CA?

Is a macro lens my only option? What would give me the best results?

480sparky · Feb 25, 2014

You only need to post the question once.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...should-i-buy-copystand-setup.html#post3170134

Derrel · Feb 25, 2014

I would DEFINITELY buy a good quality macro lens, like a 60mm Micro-Nikkor, or a Tamron 90mm AF-SP. You want a lens that is optimized for minimal distortion,and a flat image field, with no curvature of field as close range, so the macro lens is a great way to achieve that. The lighting kit made for copystand use will probably be small, space-efficient, and offer workable, easy-to-use, reasonably priced, and effective polarizing options for the lights.

rocky_peak · Feb 26, 2014

480sparky said:
You only need to post the question once.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...should-i-buy-copystand-setup.html#post3170134

Sorry I put it in both places because I didn't know which one would get the right eyes on it. It's a Nikon camera so I need Nikon compatible lens recommendations. But it's a general question.

Derrel said:
I would DEFINITELY buy a good quality macro lens, like a 60mm Micro-Nikkor, or a Tamron 90mm AF-SP. You want a lens that is optimized for minimal distortion,and a flat image field, with no curvature of field as close range, so the macro lens is a great way to achieve that. The lighting kit made for copystand use will probably be small, space-efficient, and offer workable, easy-to-use, reasonably priced, and effective polarizing options for the lights.

What do you mean by "effective polarizing options for the lights"? Orientation? Or actual polarization of the light beams?

Is the Tamron 90mm good? of the Nikon lenses my research has leaned toward the 105mm macro VR or the 200mm macro. Though the Sigmas have looked sharp. But I don't know if the sigmas have less contrast because of that. Without seeing side by side, like for like images it's really hard to tell.

As far as Macro lenses go I am lost. The Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR gets good reviews, but I also have read that the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro is sharper ( Sigma Lens: Primes - Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro (Tested) - SLRgear.com! ). There are also the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM APO Macro & Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO Macro EX DG OS HSM. Of course there's the Zeiss Makro-Planar T 100mm f/2 ZF2, but that is really more than I want to spend.

& to complicate things there are reviews showing that the Voigtlander 125mm f2.5 Apo-Lanthar is actually better than the much more expensive Zeiss ( Clash of the Titan Macros ). Unfortunately Voightlander doesn't make the lens anymore.

Now I know that a lens can be very sharp but have lower contrast as well as have great contrast and be less sharp. I'm not sure why, but I'm aware of it being a thing, & that great lenses usually have both good contrast and excellent sharpness.

Interpreting reviews isn't easy when I don't have experience on my side. Especially when many reviews are testing lenses on different cameras.

For example in many of the Nikon 105mm 2.8G VR micro reviews they're on a D200 which may appear tack sharp, but only had 10MP with which to measure sharpness. When I look at the imageresource comparison shots it looks blurryier than the Sigma or Zeiss.

Nikon 105 VR vs Sigma 105 HSM ( Nikon 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR Micro Nikkor Lens Image Quality ). Again I run into the problem of them being compared on different cameras. D3x & 1DS Mark III, but they should be similar shouldn't they?
(you can change the lenses for comparison w/ the two cascading menus at the top.)

Now I don't know if this test is flawed somehow or if there is a tradeoff I'm not noticing w/ the Sigma. I could go with the Zeiss ZF.2 but it's $1,900; more than double the Nikon or Sigma. I wish Voightlander still made the 125mm Apo-Lanthar, it was only $600 new; now it's over $2,000 on eBay.

Adding a lighting kit to the copystand adds anywhere from about $300-400. I thought for that price I could get two AlienBees B400 flashes. So the price is about the same, I just don't know what will give the best results. Especially given that incandescent, halogen & fluorescent are all offered as lighting options on the copystands. I know incandescent has a CRI of 100, but I think flashes do as well (not sure about that though).

Sites I've been combing through trying to get a grasp on lens IQ ranking

Camera lens tests, user reviews, camera accessory reviews - SLRgear.com!
Camera lens reviews and guides | Cameralabs
Nikon / Nikkor Full Format Lens Tests / Reviews
Canon DSLR Camera and Lens Reviews

Overread · Feb 26, 2014

Pretty much any of the current market options for true macro lenses are good choices; the differences between them are (as you're finding) becoming somewhat minor. You'll get differences here and there, but side by side they are quite marginal; especially if you've stopped it down to around f8 where they are all going to be tack sharp.

Some of the specialist lenses you're looking at might be a bit sharper, but once you start looking at Zeiss the prices start to go up very quickly. Also for the kind of shot you're going for the lighting and shooting conditions are fully controlled so you're not even going to be pushing the lens to its limits.

I should point out that from what I know you won't get as good a result with a camera and macro lens as you would from a dedicated film scanner. You could spend you budget on a film scanner and get a much higher resolution from the film than the DSLRs can manage. That would be the best investment for this kind of work.