KevinS

deleted

Deleted

I ordered thru EBay and the delivery times were much shorter than listed. About one week, I think, not over a month as stated.

Just sold my classic 5D. Wasn't using it, but hung on to it for years after getting 6D. The classic was a great camera and produces images that have a nice quality to them. But I often struggled with banding in the sky, which is likely related to the 12.8M pixel count. Never have that problem with the 6D. If you're good with software, maybe the banding won't present a problem, but it did for this luddite. Lens quality could be a factor, don't know.

It gets me very close to the end of the range. The ES-1 gives 24mm of travel. By manually setting the lens to minimum focus distance, the slide is in focus with the ES-1 racked out to about 23mm. If I rack the slide holder all the way out, AF (works if light source is bright enough) backs the focus off very slightly (Maybe 1 degree of lens barrel rotation). I think I'll be using AF when I get going with this, because the outer part of ES-1 wobbles quite a bit. Hard against the stop will ensure the slide is alined properly.

That is without counting the step-down adapter and the empty filters. 81mm is my total extension. The ES-1 threads into the end of that. Sorry I wasn't clearer in my post. Now I'm getting curious about results, so I'll hurry to finish taxes and see if I can get images to Alamy.

There are limited choices for extension tubes. I looked for tubes of both 58mm and 52mm diameter. Found two 19mm long tubes in the 58mm diameter, and one 28mm long in 52mm. That was all that was available, but it was close enough to what I needed. The step-down ring goes between the 58 and 52mm tubes. The ES-1 telescopes, so you don't have to find an exact amount of extension. For my lens (non-L), the exact amount is 81mm. Yours may vary.

So far I've only taken a quick glance at image quality. Could be that the two lenses are on par. Disclaimer: I'm not very scientific and am short on time at the moment. Agreed that boxed slides have fared better than ones in sheets, simply due to dust. After reading this thread I found it the perfect excuse to try a new lens. The longer focal length macro lens is more versatile, as has been said, and I do hope to shoot a lot with it as Spring progresses. I used to do quite a few assignments involving private flower gardens. IIRC the most used lens back then was Nikkor 105 (not micro) with extension tube. On one job, I did the whole thing with a Nikkor 135 f/2; the plants as well as the owner's portrait. Currently interested in native plants as they come into bloom so the Canon 100 Macro should get a workout.

Sorry to add to this already long thread, but I use Canon and have looked into this. I previously posted about the Canon 50mm Compact Macro and Nikon 55mm Micro-Nikkor, saying the Nikon was a bit sharper than the Canon. Just tried the Canon 100 f/2.8 Macro (non L) and that's what I expect to be using. The 58mm filter size meant it was easy to get some threaded extension tubes online. I guessed at the length needed and ordered the closest combination available on that day, knowing I was a bit short. Two filters with the glass removed gave enough length to make it work. The Macro lens itself is about 4.75 inches in length, and the Nikon ES-1 plus extension is about 5.75 inches in length. Total extension is about 3.2 inches. With the ES-1 racked all the way out it's easy to focus and the image very nearly fills the frame. AF did not stop hunting, which is OK. The results of a five minute test gave the best results of the three lenses I've tried, and will be fine for Alamy, I believe (will post accepted images here). One of the trial slides was old and had a lot of sky. There were hundreds of dust spots, so that one will have to go to the Nikon Coolscan 8000ED. It might be possible to completely clean the slide before shooting, but no time to try that just now. Most likely I'll use the ES-1 for slides without a lot of sky, and the scanner for the rest.

Agreed. And the 100 looks to be such a good lens that it could out-perform the 55 for copying.

When I bought my copy of this lens new over thirty years ago it already had an excellent reputation. I've since sold most other manual focus gear, but kept this one. Due to your posts on copying slides it looked like this method had a chance. Although the technical aspects are mostly beyond me at the moment, it's easy to see that this set-up allows for quick copying of lots of slides with great results. Scanning is something I still do now and then, but won't miss it if I stop. Regarding OP, IMO this lens beats Canon 50mm f/2.5, but a cheap adapter allows for its' use by Canon owners. The quality is such that I haven't ordered stuff from China for other lenses. Thanks!

Could be processing; but DxO does display those adjustments. It also applies lens corrections which might be a problem that I can't see by looking at the settings in DxO. What looks like artifacts show in the dark green areas of a flower photograph and are more pronounced with the Canon lens. I was very surprised to see this. Best to wait for examples (busy time for me now). Just checked and found I was using ES-1 incorrectly. Correct way is to focus the lens so it says 1:1, then visually focus the image by sliding the ES-1 in and out as needed. Doing it this way fills the frame. I was racking the ES-1 all the way out, then having to adjust the focus ring on the lens in a way that resulted in a smaller image. Thanks for your question; it helped me along in this endeavor. Stay tuned!

I've done some comparisons of Nikon & Canon lenses w/Nikon ES-1 Slide Copying Adapter. Since the ES-1 has 52mm threads, I was able to try it on a 55mm/2.8 Micro-Nikkor and a 50mm/2.5 Compact-Macro Canon EF. Disclaimer: Email and web browsing are still challenging to me at times. There are many on the forum who show a deeper understanding of tech issues, and I'm afraid I don't speak the language. Inspecting files at 100% is something I can do and the differences are visible. I used f/8 and f/11, aimed the rig at sunlight snow-covered front yard, live view to eliminate mirror slap. PP limited to a few DxO automatic settings and my manual adjusting of Unsharp Mask via sliders. Using a Canon 6D (20MP) and the Nikon lens + 27.5 mm of extension only fills about 80% of the frame. This is due to a difference in flange distance (index?), I think. The Canon lens + Life Size Converter shows the whole slide plus a narrow border of slide mount. The converter fills the frame nicely (makes the 50mm a 70mm), but no improvement in image quality over 25mm extension tube that I could see. I may try a cheap Nikon bellows to get the frame filled by the Nikon lens and see if the quality is maintained (I knew I shouldn't have sold those Nikon bellows!). Surprisingly, the files from the ancient Nikon are preferable to the Canon. Observations: Focus is tricky, but essential. There is a big difference in how the out of focus areas render. Nikon is smoother, Canon shows sharpening artifacts. Increasing the sharpening on the Nikon works ok, but reducing the artifacts on the Canon file not easy to do. Lighting was good, I believe, but I did read an article about diffused vs collimated light for copying negatives and recalled that I much preferred the diffuse light when working in the darkroom. Conclusions: If carefully done, I believe the Nikon files would pass Alamy QC. Maybe Canon files would, but I'll move forward with the Nikon lens for that. All files would meet my needs for family photos and stock offered on my own website. The set-up used by Phil on page one is of great interest, but I doubt that the 100mm macro plus Novoflex gear will make my shopping list. Ian M might be exploring that and it might be really good as that lens cost many times what these did. The ES-1 is a huge time-saver as there is no way to become misaligned. Higher MP count might help, as MDM has alluded. Reversing the Nikon lens would be interesting, but would require yet another doo-dad to mount the ES-1. Sorry for the rambling narrative, but know that there are many variables that I didn't anticipate, making a simple comparison impossible. If the image sizes were all consistent, that would have been simple. Canon and Nikon systems are different, and that is magnified when doing macro work. I'll have a look at DropBox this weekend and see if I can get some examples up.

I'm not well experienced with Noise Reduction, if fact I didn't use it at all until I started using DxO software. The regular NR on PhotoLab 3 is fine for most images, and is the default setting. For a small percentage of images I do apply Prime, by toggling it on and off and comparing. I believe it is automatically applied to image areas as needed and I certainly don't select areas of the image. Pretty sure it works on RAW files only. Some info here; https://www.dxo.com/dxo-photolab/prime-denoising-technology/

I've used Vuescan for years and find it like most software. I have to learn by trial and error, and never really feel as though I've mastered it. It's a great program, IMO, and easy to update (free). There is a guide that is very helpful, small charge to download, I think. All three of my scanners get along well with it. One is Nikon, one Minolta, and one Epson. Recently passed up a Polaroid Sprintscan for 4x5, only because of uncertainty in connecting to Apple machines. I'm confident that Vuescan would work well with that scanner, too. Be sure that you're in "Professional" mode, if the option is there, and I believe there is a "Fine" setting available for my Nikon 8000ED that I use. I look under all the tabs before scanning and check that the settings and file names are as they should be (at least the few I understand). For example, if you're doing several slides of the same subject, VS can assign consecutive file numbers to them by simply adding a "+" sign in the naming field. It won't forget, so you have to change that field when you move on to another subject. This and other tips are in the guide that someone sells online. Ed Hammrick, the developer of VS offers a free PDF guide, as well.