Best RF Lens(es) for Copy Stand Use?

[Lord Blackadder]

I am upgrading my copy stand setup for photographing large-format archival documents and am eager for advice on a Canon RF lens that would work best for this. It will be coupled with a full-frame Canon R6 or R8-series mirrorless camera.

In the long term I'd like to get my hands on a much more capable setup like this one that can capture A0 size at very high resolutions, but, for 1/30th the cost a mirrorless camera on a copy stand can still do very good work.

I currently have a RF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM, which is an excellent piece of glass for photographing smaller documents and objects in a controlled setting, but the focal length restricts the size of document I can work with. I am looking for a lens that will give me a substantially wider field of view with the minimum of distortion, to capture larger documents from a copy stand.

I have an old EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro, though Canon makes no RF equivalent at the moment. This seems to be a really popular choice for this work, and I haven't found anything wider thus far that seems to be able to match it in performance. I do see Canon have several wide-angle macros in the RF line, but I assume they will suffer from too much vignetting and barrel distortion for copy work.

I have come across people on the internet suggesting trying a wide-angle tilt-shift lens. I have no experience with those and only know of them from architectural photography.

I've used cameras professionally for many years in non-artistic contexts, and I am increasingly finding myself doing archival and object photography - something I have dabbled in for years but am by no means an expert. I have access to a drum scanner for larger documents, but I work with many fragile maps and blueprints that can't be scanned with those, yet are too large for a flatbed.

 

[OldMacs4Me]

50mms tend to have extremely flat fields of focus and minimal distortion, so would make an ideal choice. For many years I used an ordinary 50mm ƒ-2 Nikor on my Omega D-2 enlarger. Far better than any other enlarging lens (for 35mm) that I ever worked with. Hopefully Canon addresses that 50mm macro gap in fairly short order. In the meantime can you use a regular 50mm with larger documents, switching to the 100mm when smaller size become an issue? I would think that a modern non-macro 50mm would be able to get down to normal page size with no difficulty, but honestly have no clue regarding Canon offerings.

FWIW Nikon does offer a superb 50mm macro for their mirrorless cameras.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

50mms tend to have extremely flat fields of focus and minimal distortion, so would make an ideal choice. For many years I used an ordinary 50mm ƒ-2 Nikor on my Omega D-2 enlarger. Far better than any other enlarging lens (for 35mm) that I ever worked with. Hopefully Canon addresses that 50mm macro gap in fairly short order. In the meantime can you use a regular 50mm with larger documents, switching to the 100mm when smaller size become an issue? I would think that a modern non-macro 50mm would be able to get down to normal page size with no difficulty, but honestly have no clue regarding Canon offerings.

FWIW Nikon does offer a superb 50mm macro for their mirrorless cameras.

Yes, I am generally brand agnostic but I have some existing Canon mirrorless gear so for the present I am sticking with that. The 50mm EF lens I mentioned seems like the best stopgap (I have the adapter), and my own research suggests that the 50mm is the widest focal length that is really suitable for this work. I was curious if anyone had any alternatives, but if not then I will probably continue to use what I have until Canon releases an RF mount 50mm macro. At least until I can get a bespoke rig with the integrated large/medium format digital cameras.

 

[Alameda]

Yes, I am generally brand agnostic but I have some existing Canon mirrorless gear so for the present I am sticking with that. The 50mm EF lens I mentioned seems like the best stopgap (I have the adapter), and my own research suggests that the 50mm is the widest focal length that is really suitable for this work. I was curious if anyone had any alternatives, but if not then I will probably continue to use what I have until Canon releases an RF mount 50mm macro. At least until I can get a bespoke rig with the integrated large/medium format digital cameras.

I don't think RF technology will benefit in this case, anyway. You certainly don't need a more compact lens, or faster AF.

When I did this work, we used an APS-C rebel camera and the results were pretty amazing. It does help to have the shortest focal length you can get, so 50mm on a full-frame is a lot better than the 50mm APS-C we used. You should be able to dial in a fixed aperture that will be ideal. It is probably around f/8 but too wide open and the image will be softer and too closed down and diffraction will also soften the image.

Beyond that, good, well-diffused lighting was the ticket. I depends what you shoot. We were shooting circuit boards which had some large capacitors; they would cast shadows and cause challenges with even lighting, and there was reflective material on the board (solder, etc.), so lighting was a challenge. It's all part of "once it's set up, it's easy," but getting it tuned just right takes a lot of trial, error, time and patience. Having a very stable stand and the best quality camera mount is also very helpful because you find yourself trying to make very minute adjustments to tilt, in order to get a perfectly flat shot corner-to-corner. Inexpensive products won't let you do this and every time you make a small adjustment it bounces around until it's settled.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I don't think RF technology will benefit in this case, anyway. You certainly don't need a more compact lens, or faster AF.

Agreed. What I am prioritizing is a wide enough field of view to capture large-format items without needing a 10 foot-tall copy stand, plus very low distortion.

When I did this work, we used an APS-C rebel camera and the results were pretty amazing. It does help to have the shortest focal length you can get, so 50mm on a full-frame is a lot better than the 50mm APS-C we used. You should be able to dial in a fixed aperture that will be ideal. It is probably around f/8 but too wide open and the image will be softer and too closed down and diffraction will also soften the image.

My first attempts years ago were with a crop sensor Canon Rebel (50D I think) and they were good, though the full frame camera has yielded much better results. The focal length was the biggest issue I had with APS-C, as you say.

I am still looking around and it seems nobody does this kind of work with a focal length below 50mm, so I think that probably is the 'widest' lens I can expect good results with. And of course the 100mm macro will do better when I can use it.

There is now a whole industry producing "cultural heritage digitization" rigs to the US federal FADGI standard, which is a gigantic technical rabbit hole that covers a bunch of stuff most people probably don't need to care about, but are relevant to formal archival digitization. These use medium/large format sensors with 72mm or greater focal length lenses, so vaguely the equivalent of a 50mm or up lens on 35mm I think.

Beyond that, good, well-diffused lighting was the ticket. I depends what you shoot. We were shooting circuit boards which had some large capacitors; they would cast shadows and cause challenges with even lighting, and there was reflective material on the board (solder, etc.), so lighting was a challenge. It's all part of "once it's set up, it's easy," but getting it tuned just right takes a lot of trial, error, time and patience. Having a very stable stand and the best quality camera mount is also very helpful because you find yourself trying to make very minute adjustments to tilt, in order to get a perfectly flat shot corner-to-corner. Inexpensive products won't let you do this and every time you make a small adjustment it bounces around until it's settled.

Lighting has been the biggest challenge. Reflective documents, such as very large glossy panoramic photo prints from the early 20th century that also feature a few creases and dents, are awful to work with. You need a wider focal length but light is bounding off those in every direction.

I do need to up my lighting game with more powerful but diffused offset lighting that I can move around. The attached lighting available on most copy stands has generally worked fine for non-reflective materials, but for the more difficult stuff (or items that need to be flattened under glass) I can waste a lot of time setting up a shot and still leave unsatisfied.

Thanks for the thoughts. I think the best I can do with 35mm is a full-frame mirrorless body on a motorized copy stand (with a removable glass top) with 50 and 100mm macro lenses and flexible diffused lighting. The goal is to get a raw image that requires very little postprocessing.

And I probably need to learn how to use Darktable properly...

 

[Alameda]

Agreed. What I am prioritizing is a wide enough field of view to capture large-format items without needing a 10 foot-tall copy stand, plus very low distortion.



My first attempts years ago were with a crop sensor Canon Rebel (50D I think) and they were good, though the full frame camera has yielded much better results. The focal length was the biggest issue I had with APS-C, as you say.

I am still looking around and it seems nobody does this kind of work with a focal length below 50mm, so I think that probably is the 'widest' lens I can expect good results with. And of course the 100mm macro will do better when I can use it.

There is now a whole industry producing "cultural heritage digitization" rigs to the US federal FADGI standard, which is a gigantic technical rabbit hole that covers a bunch of stuff most people probably don't need to care about, but are relevant to formal archival digitization. These use medium/large format sensors with 72mm or greater focal length lenses, so vaguely the equivalent of a 50mm or up lens on 35mm I think.



Lighting has been the biggest challenge. Reflective documents, such as very large glossy panoramic photo prints from the early 20th century that also feature a few creases and dents, are awful to work with. You need a wider focal length but light is bounding off those in every direction.

I do need to up my lighting game with more powerful but diffused offset lighting that I can move around. The attached lighting available on most copy stands has generally worked fine for non-reflective materials, but for the more difficult stuff (or items that need to be flattened under glass) I can waste a lot of time setting up a shot and still leave unsatisfied.

Thanks for the thoughts. I think the best I can do with 35mm is a full-frame mirrorless body on a motorized copy stand (with a removable glass top) with 50 and 100mm macro lenses and flexible diffused lighting. The goal is to get a raw image that requires very little postprocessing.

And I probably need to learn how to use Darktable properly...

I wound up holding pieces of thin white foam over the spotlights to create diffusion. Muslin or similar white fabric between your lights and the subject can also work. They make “light tents” for this purpose but I think you might need more fabric.

You can control the camera via USB if you want, using some software from Canon. It has some advantages because when you touch the camera on the stand it will vibrate and it takes time for the vibrations to settle down. And it’s a pain to reach up to the copy stand to touch things on the camera. So you might want to look into that. I did this many years ago but I think Canon still makes the software.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

You can control the camera via USB if you want, using some software from Canon. It has some advantages because when you touch the camera on the stand it will vibrate and it takes time for the vibrations to settle down. And it’s a pain to reach up to the copy stand to touch things on the camera. So you might want to look into that. I did this many years ago but I think Canon still makes the software.

Yes, I've done this using Lightroom and Canon's app too. I am considering switching to Darktable as it has a good feature set and is open source, despite being less user-friendly. And I hate Adobe with the passion of ten thousand suns.

 

[Alameda]

Yes, I've done this using Lightroom and Canon's app too. I am considering switching to Darktable as it has a good feature set and is open source, despite being less user-friendly. And I hate Adobe with the passion of ten thousand suns.

Hi! It’s Adobe. Hey, you don’t mind if we install 25,000 files inside of every single folder on your disk drive, do you?

For the life of me, I can’t figure out why they need so many files in so many places.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Hi! It’s Adobe. Hey, you don’t mind if we install 25,000 files inside of every single folder on your disk drive, do you?

For the life of me, I can’t figure out why they need so many files in so many places.

Yeah. And they were an early pusher of the subscription model that helped start all this 'you'll own nothing' nonsense that is ruining our lives.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Yeah. And they were an early pusher of the subscription model that helped start all this 'you'll own nothing' nonsense that is ruining our lives.

I recall them being the first (or at least the first I use).

For what it’s worth we supply all our copy stands with 50mm lenses (when the customer requests a ‘kit’).

It never astounds me how many we sell though.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Good to know. 50mm seems the standard for sure!