What lens should I buy for a copystand setup?

rocky_peak · Feb 25, 2014

Equipment:

Camera: Nikon D800

Copystand: still deciding between the following
Bencher Copymate II
or Beseler CS-14 Copystand Kit
or Kaiser RS 1 / RS 2

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

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

Why not scan them on a flatbed scanner?

If you're set on using a lens/DSLR, look into a macro lens.

Light Guru · Feb 25, 2014

I use both a scanner and copy stand set up regularly at work and for photographs we only use scanners. You can get higher resolution from the scanner. You say you want the "best quality possible" but you don't tell us what dpi/ppi you want the digital images to be. With a copy stand you control your dpi by the hight on the camera, the lower the camera the higher the dpi (thus the previous suggestion of a macro lens). Like I said at work all photographs go on the scanner, and the copy stands are mainly used for books.

rocky_peak · Feb 26, 2014

Light Guru said:
I use both a scanner and copy stand set up regularly at work and for photographs we only use scanners. You can get higher resolution from the scanner. You say you want the "best quality possible" but you don't tell us what dpi/ppi you want the digital images to be. With a copy stand you control your dpi by the hight on the camera, the lower the camera the higher the dpi (thus the previous suggestion of a macro lens). Like I said at work all photographs go on the scanner, and the copy stands are mainly used for books.

If a scanner will produce better IQ maybe I should do that instead. I looked into scanners but it didn't look like many had come out since the mid 2000s. From what I'd read the Epson V700 was the best. I had been waiting for them to release a newer version.

Some of the photographs are of the silver type, and I know those can't be scanned because they reflect the light from the scanner like a mirror. But the majority are traditional prints or polaroids.

My working theory was that none of the photographs would have more than 36MP of detail so the D800 should be able to duplicate them without any loss of IQ, assuming the optics were sharp enough & offered equivalent contrast.

Of course I am an amateur photographer at best, so that is why I'm asking for guidance from more experienced minds.

I also have slides, and I thought I might be able to use something like this Nikon ES-1 Slide Copying Adapter ( Nikon ES-1 Slide Copying Adapter 3213 B&H Photo Video ). I have read that the Nikon Coolscan 5000 ( Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED Review (LS-5000) ) & 9000 ( Film scanner Nikon Super Coolscan LS-9000 ED Review, test report, experiences, medium format, 35mm, slides and negatives ) were the best with 4000 dpi. & that they used something called Digital ICE Pro 4 (a second infrared scanning to remove dust/scratches). However I can't find them for sale anywhere except eBay because they were discontinued, now it seems they sell for almost triple what they cost new.

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.

How many megapixels can your scanner create from a 3"x5"? What scanner do you use & what one would you reccomend?

A review of the V700 says it creates a 7 megapixel image from a slide. A Nikon Coolscann 4000 or 9000 creates a 22.4 megapixel image. I was hoping a good lens would allow me to at least match that w/ a slide adapter attached to my D800. If I cleaned the slides I was hoping I could get away with not having Digital ICE. I was also thinking I could take multiple exposures of each one and use photoshop to finagle detail w/ HDR? I don't know if that would help or make it worse though.

Thanks