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 micr

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

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 qual

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 r

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 limite

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,