# Has anyone tried "scanning" 35mm negs with an SLR?



## DRR (Jul 21, 2014)

I have a bunch of old 35mm negs that I need scanned. About 20 rolls of 36 exp, cut negs.

I priced it out and it'd be about 500-700 to get it scanned locally.

Since I have the time and good equipment I thought I might try this myself?

If I did it the cheap way, I'd use my 5dII, 35mm f/2, 25mm extension tube - that would give me almost 1:1 magnification. Negs on a lightbox, make sure my planes are all parallel, kill all ambient light, shoot at about f/8 with mirror lockup, either live view or shoot tethered to fine tune focus.

Or, a speedlite instead of the lightbox? Would that yield significantly better results? Or if I wanted to sink more money into the project, I could buy a 100mm macro instead of the same money going to a scanning place. ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 21, 2014)

http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/

That's basically what I did....except I was doing slides

Set the tripod up over top of a light-table, used the 100L macro lens, and a slide holder to hold the film down flat on the table, focus with live view, and use a remote to trigger the camera.


----------



## mrzero (Jul 21, 2014)

There are flatbed scanners capable of scanning film negatives that are affordable and supposedly quite good. I plan on getting the Canon CanoScan 9000F MKII scanner, and it is listed on Amazon around $180 US. I just need to clear up the funds and the desk space first. For 20 rolls of 36, I think it would be much easier and the quality much better. 

If you already have a good flatbed scanner but it doesn't do film negatives, I read a DIY article that showed how to make a box to reflect the light from the scanner around behind the negative. You could also try that on the cheap. I'm pretty sure it was this article: http://makezine.com/2011/07/13/how-to-cut-and-fold-slide-negative-scanner/.


----------



## tolusina (Jul 21, 2014)

DRR said:


> ....make sure my planes are all parallel, kill all ambient light, shoot at about f/8 with mirror lockup, either live view or shoot tethered to fine tune focus......


To square your tripod mounted camera to the viewing surface, lay a mirror flat on that viewing surface. When the center focus point in the viewfinder is centered in the reflection of the lens, you're squared up. 
With some lenses, you'll be able to see a refection of your own eye out through the finder, prism and camera's mirror to the viewing surface mirror and back again when all is squared.
---
The petapixel page that Don Haines linked mentions setting a custom white balance, yes indeed, do that.
---
I've not tried the rest of those petapixel techniques but they all sound great. I especially like the one about focusing on the film's grain though I'm unclear why each subsequent shot would need to be re-focused. 
When I last DSLR'd film, I had no live view, no tethering, no extension tubes, a marginal PC. Your posting here inspires me to give it another go.
---
If you stitch multiple frames together, another free stitching program is Microsoft's ICE, very easy to use, can take .cr2s, output tiffs and several other easily configured options.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 21, 2014)

You'd do much better with even a low end Epson photo scanner. Why not get a used slide/film scanner from ebay, scan your film, and resell it. It might just cost you a little for shipping it.

I have three or 4 old photo scanners around.

BTW, check Craigslist. Sometimes Reasonably Good Epson Photo Scanners can be had for $10. Epson might no longer supply drivers for Windows 7 64 bit, so people dump them not knowing that there are third party scanner drivers that work well.


----------



## Rudeofus (Jul 21, 2014)

I have an Epson V700 for scanning my negs&slides, and with 35mm material sharpness is dreadful, so is dynamic range (which means sensor noise). And the V700 is supposedly top of the line when it comes to flat bed film scanners. 

If DSLRs have soooo many megapixels, sharp lenses and tons of dynamic range, then I really wonder why everybody recommends flat bed scanners.

I recommended a film/slide scanner, but yes, my V700 does a great job on slides as compared to my 5D MK III. It is not a dedicated film scanner or a drum scanner, so I do not expect that kind of results.


----------



## DRR (Jul 21, 2014)

Great tips here. I have tried a flatbed (Epson Photo scanner) and the results were acceptable, but really not impressive. The other downside with flatbed scanning is that I found it very slow, for anything aside from low-res scans.


----------



## Dave__C (Jul 21, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> I have an Epson V700 for scanning my negs&slides, and with 35mm material sharpness is dreadful, so is dynamic range (which means sensor noise). And the V700 is supposedly top of the line when it comes to flat bed film scanners.
> 
> If DSLRs have soooo many megapixels, sharp lenses and tons of dynamic range, then I really wonder why everybody recommends flat bed scanners.



I have an Epson V600 and have found it to be quite adequate for archival capture of both slides and negatives. I wonder if you might be using lower resolution settings on the V700 and that's why you are unhappy with the results?

I have a 13" x 18" print on the wall from a scanned negative that looks absolutely beautiful. No issue with sharpness at all.

The biggest issue I run into is dust on the images. I think that will be a problem regardless of the technique used.

It's also pretty slow when you set the scanner for high resolution. It can take several minutes per slide for the scan and if you save as TIFF images, you can easily end up with 80 MB files.


----------



## suburbia (Jul 21, 2014)

+1 for the slide copy adapter

I had a dedicated Minolta film scanner but I was never that thrilled with the results (seemed to merely pick out film grain than actual image clarity when increasing resolution to its max ~5000dpi) and it was so slow to scan at full resolution with all the image processing functions turned on, many hours for the 4 slide holder ending up with 100MB files. 

Modern SLR now have equal resolutions and I used a dedicated film era slide duplicator on my 5d Mk II to take photos of my slide collection. I guess this is the same as using a 1:1 Macro but with a convenient slide holder built in. This was by far a more workflow friendly setup and I could digitize a whole reel of slides in under an hour once everything was setup. I found a diffused Flash unit rather than a light box more suitable for the work flow as the exposure was more reliable with a fast shutter at low ISO setting easily achievable.

The results were very good with good image clarity certainly enough for full HD viewing.

The only downside is that I missed the dust detector of the film scanner and had to be meticulously cleaning the slides from dust beforehand.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 21, 2014)

Have you considered a slide copy adapter?


----------



## LJ3Jim (Jul 21, 2014)

Here's my "do-it-myself" solution for slides. It worked very well, and I could do a slide in about 10 seconds. I have a Plustek scanner, but it took about 2 minutes per slide. In my opinion, my photographed results were better than the scanned images.

A friend of mine also has a good slide scanner, but he chose to use his macro lens. He felt he got better results that way, too. However, lots of folks prefer scanners. You can probably rig something simple to photograph a few of your negatives and see if that method is good enough for you. If not, go the scanner route.


----------



## noisejammer (Jul 21, 2014)

I've tried with an Epson V750... it's a real p.i.t.a. Here are two alternatives that will work

An easy way would be to purchase an old Olympus OM slide copying jig. This would cost you around $500-ish, take the photos and then resell it. You can also decide whether to copy at 1:1 or crop the image (I think it supported 4:1 but my memory is vague.) It works best if you slide mount your images.

Another alternative would be to do the same with a Nikon Coolscan 4000 or 5000. These cost more (~$800 and ~$1200 respectively) but are easier to resell. If you do this make sure you have the SA-21 attachment and a film holder.


----------



## suburbia (Jul 21, 2014)

noisejammer said:


> I've tried with an Epson V750... it's a real p.i.t.a. Here are two alternatives that will work
> 
> An easy way would be to purchase an old Olympus OM slide copying jig. This would cost you around $500-ish, take the photos and then resell it.



My slide copier was about $50 new with Canon mount from a normal camera retail shop and did the job fine. I've seen more fancy ones ie with a multiple slide holder for around $100 new


----------



## LDS (Jul 21, 2014)

DRR said:


> Since I have the time and good equipment I thought I might try this myself?



Actually, before scanner were available, the only way to reproduce slides and negs was photographing them. There were special films as well for reproduction. Canon had a repro adapter to be mounted on its bellows, coupled with a macro lens, it also allowed for "cropping" a slide. I still have the bellows, I guess I should look for an EF-FD macro adapter and the repro accessory  IMHO with a good setup you can obtain results far superior than most scanners, although it's a slower technique.

Beware of some low/medium range scanner offering "slide/negs adapters", they may return so-so results.

For lightning any good, homogeneous, stable source will be enough - once there were even enlarger "color heads" used to correct casts on images, but now you can easily correct whatever in post-production.

Also ensure the neg/slide is flat when you take images of it - often they are not.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2014)

LDS said:


> DRR said:
> 
> 
> > Since I have the time and good equipment I thought I might try this myself?
> ...



Yes it did, here is mine.

FD 50mm Macro reverse mounted in FD auto bellows with the slide copier attachment on it, for years that was the only way of "backing up" your work. Now I just need to get an FD-EOS adapter and a body that clears the rail at 1:1, my 1 series digitals don't!


----------



## eos650 (Jul 21, 2014)

I bought a slide duplicator that mounts on my camera, using a t-mount. The item I bought was similar to this, but not exactly the same:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Zoom-Slide-Duplicator-T-Mount-MINT-/121050627342?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item1c2f2dfd0e

Here are some pros and cons...

Pros
Fast - Make a copy as fast as you can insert the slide/negative and take a picture. My scanner takes a minute plus to scan a hi-res image.
Hi-Res - My DSLR makes a much higher resolution copy than my scanner
Better Color - My DSLR gives better color than my scanner (for slides). I haven't been able to perfect the color profile for negatives, but I am working on it.

Cons
Have to load one at a time. I can load twelve slides/negatives at a time in my scanner
I don't have a good color profile for negatives. I get good results, but not great, due to the fact that I have been unable to dial in a good profile for correcting the negatives. The scanner has a built in profile for handling the orange background on negatives.
Works well with mounted slides, but my negatives are in strips. I had to modify a film strip holder so that I could properly hold my negatives in place.




DRR said:


> I have a bunch of old 35mm negs that I need scanned. About 20 rolls of 36 exp, cut negs.
> 
> I priced it out and it'd be about 500-700 to get it scanned locally.
> 
> ...


----------



## Frodo (Jul 21, 2014)

I tried a slide adaptor in my reasonably good Canon scanner - results were pathetic.
I then made an adaptor that screws on the front of my EF 50mm macro with extension tube. This tube holds the slide at just the right distance for 1:1 (actually a little less so I crop slightly when processing) and a bit further back is a diffuser made out of a plastic ice-cream container lid that was neutral in colour. I can take a photo of the adaptor if people are interested.
I then use a flash on a TTL cord to illuminate the slide. Use auto exposure but found I need to give about +1/2 - 1 stop to get the best image.
I clean dust off the slides reasonably well, but find that the last spots are much easier to remove in Lightroom.
I found that using the medium RAW file on my 5DII was about right - the full resolution file is more than the original slide and is wasted resolution.
I have a preset for processing the slides. I find that I can "improve" the slides significantly by filling in the shadows yet retain highlights, as well as correct colour balance, and remove dust and fungus (lots of fungus on my Kodachromes, but at least they retained colour well). 
I produce two jpgs: a full resolution (of the medium RAW file) and one that will fit within a 1920x1080 full HD TV screen. Then I delete the RAW file. Once the images are backed up I through away the slides. 
This works well and the sharpness is great. The most time is spent in processing the image in Lightroom, but I think that this is a part of the process that makes a huge difference.
I ended up doing over 10,000 slides this way.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Yep...for the cost of one used Popsicle stick and three glue dots, in addition to the stuff I already had.


----------



## photonius (Jul 21, 2014)

good comments by eos650 and frodo.
I also made a slide copier set-up for similar reasons, see here: http://photonius.wikispaces.com/Slide+copier

The issue I haven't solved either yet though is how to do a good correction profile for negatives. (I have mostly slides, so negatives not a priority)


----------



## dcm (Jul 22, 2014)

Used an epson v750 for hundreds of slides, thousands of negatives in different sizes from 70+ years of photography. The details you can get from old b&w negatives is amazing. It took a while and some experimentation to dial it in. Key benefit of this scanner is two pass scanning, one in IR to eliminate dust, scratches, etc. Highly recommend VueScan for the process, it also has profiles for many different types of negatives. Not sure if you can apply that to images you take with your camera but you might check that out.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 22, 2014)

When I bought my bellows for my macro setup, it came with an attachment for duplicating slides/negs. Some tog friends of mine use them and have found them most efficient.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 22, 2014)

These are interesting rig-ups; I got a Reflecta CrystalScan 7200 a few birthdays ago but have been too occupied/lazy to use it so far. :-[ I am however saving it for the day when I feel motivated to scan some old (or new) material.

I wonder why nobody has so far posted any pictures that show the photographed and processed results. 

Anybody?


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 22, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> I wonder why nobody has so far posted any pictures that show the photographed and processed results.
> 
> Anybody?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 22, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder why nobody has so far posted any pictures that show the photographed and processed results.
> ...



Its because the jpeg small image results are so difficult to evaluate.

Realistically, those old photo negatives and slides were often made with consumer or low end cameras back when we were poor college students, and high end scanning is limited by the quality of the original.

If you have high end film equipment, then get a dedicated film scanner and then resell it, or have them professionally done.


----------



## FlorianP (Jul 22, 2014)

Hi, as to getting good Color from color Negs, I have found that "color Perfect" plugin to work great on negatives.
I scan still using a FS4000, into Tiff raw files. Using the plug in has given me quicker and nicer conversions.

I just started trying to copy via DSLR, and it works there also.
The problem I find is that you need to make sure that camera and film are aligned, and that you CLEAN everything.
I am choosing to go this way in the future, as the scanner takes 20-55 minutes for 6 and the DSLR is 1 a minute. I have way too many negs to scan via scanner

I also am using it to shoot large format negs, like 126, 6x7, and even 4x5 inch. With these, I am so far finding success stitching the parts together and getting a great "scan"/copy.
I would post, but, right now I am dealing with the alignment, dust issue. 

I scan/shoot the negs as negs.


----------



## LDS (Jul 22, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes it did, here is mine.



It looks Novoflex still produces something alike, although less sophisticated (there's no bellows between the lens and the film): http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/macro-accessories/focusing-racks/castel-cop-digi/

Anybody knows why Canon never made for the EOS those macro accessories once available, and switched to a very specialized lens only like the MP-E 65mm? It's an excellent lens, but I find it less versatile than a bellows (especially since it comes without a focusing rail). Anybody tried the Novoflex bellows?


----------



## photonius (Jul 22, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> These are interesting rig-ups; I got a Reflecta CrystalScan 7200 a few birthdays ago but have been too occupied/lazy to use it so far. :-[ I am however saving it for the day when I feel motivated to scan some old (or new) material.
> 
> I wonder why nobody has so far posted any pictures that show the photographed and processed results.
> 
> Anybody?



based on this review it's not so useful for scanning thousands of slides because of the speed http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaCrystalScan7200.html
that's why copying slides at least with camera is faster. now, I still need some time... ;-)


----------



## LDS (Jul 22, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Realistically, those old photo negatives and slides were often made with consumer or low end cameras back when we were poor college students, and high end scanning is limited by the quality of the original.


Well, someone is old enough to have a lot of slides shoot on Kodachrome 25 or 64 using some decent FD lenses (not the L ones, but some good ones like the 24/2.8, 135/2, 200/2.8 and 300/4), and I'm interested to understand if an FF camera with a macro lens can beat a film scanner or not.
Professional services may be expensive, not available nearby, and I would be a little worried to send away some "precious" (at least for me) slides I have no backup of :-\


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 23, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



The small one is a 100% crop of the big one. I thought that would be obvious.


----------



## drummstikk (Jul 23, 2014)

dcm said:


> Used an epson v750 for hundreds of slides, thousands of negatives in different sizes from 70+ years of photography. The details you can get from old b&w negatives is amazing. It took a while and some experimentation to dial it in. Key benefit of this scanner is two pass scanning, one in IR to eliminate dust, scratches, etc. Highly recommend VueScan for the process, it also has profiles for many different types of negatives. Not sure if you can apply that to images you take with your camera but you might check that out.



Your post saved me some keystrokes. +1 on everything. I don't have hands on with V750, but have hired out some work to a provider who uses a V700 (essentially the same machine without wet-mount ability), and was very pleased with the quality. And Vuescan is killer. Every hardware provider should just stop trying to develop their own half-arsed proprietary software and just make a bundling deal with Ed Hamrick for Vuescan, which allows you to essentially save out RAW files of the scanned data so there's not loss due to processing the file out as TIF or JPG. Vuescan is better than software that came with $20,000 Heidelberg scanners I worked with in a previous job. 

Epson's V600 is a great flatbed scanner for your old prints, but for film, it's hobbled by so-so software and horrible film holders. I'm using a pair of Microtek i800's that beat the V600 in about every way and plays very well with Viewscan. Got them both for under $200 ea. on eBay. A dedicated film scanner would be the best thing if you have the bucks. For me, scanning is less mission-critical than nostalgic or for archive, so a large expense can't be justified. 

I really feel a scanner is by far the best way to go for this type of work, yet my hat is off to the ingenuity shown by those who have built the home brew rigs shown in this thread. If you go the slide duplicator style route, choosing the right kind of lens would be important. A macro lens or even an enlarging lens would have the flattest possible field of focus that would be key to best results. And the odd and varied base colors of the many types of color negative films will give you fits pretty much without a doubt. A scanner (or more correctly, the software) would compensate for that more easily, in addition to the infrared dust cleanup that scanners with that capability can do.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 23, 2014)

drummstikk said:


> dcm said:
> 
> 
> > Used an epson v750 for hundreds of slides, thousands of negatives in different sizes from 70+ years of photography. The details you can get from old b&w negatives is amazing. It took a while and some experimentation to dial it in. Key benefit of this scanner is two pass scanning, one in IR to eliminate dust, scratches, etc. Highly recommend VueScan for the process, it also has profiles for many different types of negatives. Not sure if you can apply that to images you take with your camera but you might check that out.
> ...



Thanks, I'm taking notes of this for when I'm going to do some scanning -these kinds of threads are motivating (but I prefer to leave that type of work for the dark days of fall/winter).


----------



## drummstikk (Jul 23, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Thanks, I'm taking notes of this for when I'm going to do some scanning -these kinds of threads are motivating (but I prefer to leave that type of work for the dark days of fall/winter).



Good plan. I packed away my film archive by the end of April probably would excavate it again until holiday time.

One thing important to know about VueScan that I forgot to mention: The RAW files it puts out are compatible with Lightroom/ACR, but NOT Aperture. That's one thing that started my move away from Aperture even before Apple announced it was reaching end-of-life.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 24, 2014)

drummstikk said:


> One thing important to know about VueScan that I forgot to mention: The RAW files it puts out are compatible with Lightroom/ACR, but NOT Aperture. That's one thing that started my move away from Aperture even before Apple announced it was reaching end-of-life.



Thanks, fortunately I've got Lightroom that I use for my Sony RAW files so it's easy to go from there. For CR2's I still prefer DPP


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 26, 2014)

I am following the posts carefully. So far, it seems a macro lens with a DIY setup to stabilize the negatives in front and a diffuser with a remotely triggered flash to backlight it is the best setup.
The jury is still out on the processing of the negatives.

I have a question: in the link posted http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/
the author says 4-6 shots are required for a 35mm image, but he is using a Zeiss Makro Planar, and a 1:3 magnification.
What I don't understand is, unless the magnification is greater than 1:1, why would I need to take multiple images and stitch. Can someone clarify? 
Thanks!


----------



## Omni Images (Jul 26, 2014)

The bottom line I think to how to go about it is what do you intend to do with the image after scanning it.
Do you want to print it up at some massive size to put on your wall at home, or even sell commercially, or do you just want a copy to put up on facebook or share over the computer with family or friends.
To print and frame it up at eny decent size you'll need a very good copy/scan indeed .... to share it on the internet or your computer, then you don't need to go all out to get the best out of the slide.
Perhaps most can be copied in a cheap and easy way .. but you may have a few gems that would warrant best practice to get a top quality digital copy.
I have copied many of my slides in a few different ways.
I have the old FD mount Canon Auto bellows and slide duplicator.
I have projected slides on a pure white surface at a medium to smallish size to keep them sharp and just taken a digital shot.
I still shoot film on Linhof Technorama 617s 120 panorama and also a Horseman 4x5.
I wanted the absolute best scan I can do at home without having to send them away to be drum scanned.
Lots of research later and I opted to buy an Epson V750 pro ... I had to import it from the USA as Epson does not even sell that model here in Australia, I have a transformer to drop the volts down to 110 from 220.
I then bought a wet scan kit from "Scan Science" in Canada, waited the 4 months for the kit to come out by boat.
The kit comes with shims to adjust the height so you can dial in the correct distance to achieve perfect focus.
It does take some time to test and sort out a work flow, I have it dialed in now.
I scan at it's max optical res at 4800 .. the tiff files from a 120 pano come in at about 2gb
I could enlarge these easy to 100" x 30" on the Fuji Flex paper and they would look brilliant.
Yes they do take time to de-dust, working clean helps.

So bottom line is what is the final use of the image you want, and decide what lengths you are prepared to go to to get optimal image quality.
Those that say they don't get good quality from the Epson don't know how to use it correctly, or not taken the time to do so.
The quality I can achieve from the Epson V750 would hard to differentiate from a scan using a 20K+ drum scanner
End use is what should determine the technique you would use here.


----------



## mrzero (Jul 27, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I have a question: in the link posted http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/
> the author says 4-6 shots are required for a 35mm image, but he is using a Zeiss Makro Planar, and a 1:3 magnification.
> What I don't understand is, unless the magnification is greater than 1:1, why would I need to take multiple images and stitch. Can someone clarify?
> Thanks!



The author is stitching multiple photos in order to extract the most detail from each negative/slide. The explanation: 

"Using an higher reproduction ratio is more time consuming (you’ll need more shots to cover the same area), but as a result you will be able to extract the most detail from the film. Here are some examples showing my Canon setup at various reproduction ratios, compared to the results of a well-respected flatbed scanner, the Epson v700..."

The exact numbers depend on the size of the negative/slide compared to the size of the digital sensor. Using 1:1 for a 35mm negative would require stitching multiple shots on an APS-C sensor camera, or just a single shot on a full-frame digital camera.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 27, 2014)

mrzero said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I have a question: in the link posted http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/
> ...



Ah, 35mm film on an aps-c camera- that makes sense!
Thanks for the clarification


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 28, 2014)

As noted above, it depends on what you want to do with the images once 'scanned'. If it's just consumer-grade film, and/or you're just going to post them online shrunk to 2MP or so, go right ahead. If you want to inkjet print them up to A3 or something, that'll also work with better films and cameras.
But if you want to print them bigger like A2, you'd better get a real scanner, and even bigger than that and you're better off printing optically (enlarger and darkroom), as long as they're not slides.
If you're trying to extract maximum detail from a really good film, you're much better off printing optically. There's a recent test here (near the bottom) comparing resolution of mostly B+W films and Velvia/Ektar, most are resolving in the range of 100-130 lp/mm, even a D800(E) with the same lens (Zeiss Makro-Planar 50/2) only gets 85 (95) lp/mm.


----------



## slclick (Jul 28, 2014)

No. When I not ready to shell out for using a private lab's drum scanner I use the Nikon SuperCoolscan 4000ED at my schools lab. BUT, what I really had a good time with was an Ion iPics 2 Go machine and the iPhone app for said box. Easy, versatile and FAST.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jul 28, 2014)

LDS said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Yes it did, here is mine.
> ...



I have an old Novoflex macro bellows and Novoflex noflexar 105mm f4 bellows lens. I've bought it about 2 years ago and use it now and then. In its early life, it was used in a medical context. It is alright in terms of sharpness but has some CA. Lightroom does a good job of getting rid of those though. The rail mechanism is a bit rough on my copy, but I think I could give it a cleanup and it would be smooth. Having an integrated focus rail, even a stiff one, is great nevertheless.

I don't have a slide copy attachment so I can't comment on that.


----------

