Scitex S-3 340 Smart Scanner Lens Removal Project

[RobertOToole]

Late last year I found a Scitex 340 scanner at a too-good-to-pass price so I decided to turn it into a project.

Since then I have not shot much with the lenses, they need to be mounted in reverse and they take a lot more extension, more than I expected.

Eventually I plan to create pages for each lens, 67,89, and 110.

Here is what I have found so far, hope you find this interesting.



The 110 lettering is reversed since it is mounted backwards in the scanner.




This scanner is huge, this is a full-size van and it takes up most of the cargo area. It weighs about 150+ pounds.



Scanner with the cover glass pulled. The servo motor only moves the Rogonar lens on the far left, I am guessing that this one is used for a preview scan maybe? The three S-3 lenses only move laterally and do not change position from the sensor. They are all a fixed distance.



These distances to the sensor are closer than I thought they would be. I have the exact measurements in my notes if anyone is interested.



This is the 67mm S-3 unmounted and mounted backwards inside a 52mm tube.

The two shorter lenses need to be mounted in reverse and they take a lot of extension to get the same distance to the subject as they are here from the sensor. I have shot some with the 67mm and it seems to be optimized for a certain magnification/distance. More or less and the performance drops.

This info can also be seen on my site:

https://www.closeuphotography.com/scitex-smart-340-s3-scanner-lenses/

If you have any info on the 340 scanner or S-3 lenses let me know. I would appreciate it.

Thanks.

Robert

[GaryB]

nice project, I look forward to seeing how it goes.

[RobertOToole]

[GaryB]

No rest for the wicked

[zzffnn]

Great work, Robert! Thank you for sharing!

Lenses requiring long extensions may work well when mounted like microscope objectives on microscope stand (objective lens - DIY or factory lens turret - scope nose - head or extension tubes and/or camera).

I notice you use PPI (pixel per inch) for Scitex and you mostly used dots-per-inch DPI for Minolta scanner lenses. How do we compare those DPI vs PPI values (is DPI values printer specific)? Sorry, if this is a stupid question.
_________________
Selling my Canon FD 200mm F/2.8 lens

[RobertOToole]

[SURF]

Hi! I'm in. First post here.

[ray_parkhurst]

Good info in that thread. The 108LFOV is indeed superb.

[RobertOToole]

[soldevilla]

[ChrisR]

The scanner is big and is heavy.
Goes into a Honda CR-V only if you roll the rear seats forwards and then only lengthwise. Weighs 100kg (220 lbs). If I'd known that I wouldn't have lifted the thing in by myself. I thought, surely it can't weigh more than my wife, and I can lift her. But it does and the corners are sharper.
The 320, 340 and 342 models have the same lenses (different scan rates), "(L)" is not significant for us.
It's built like a part of a Type 42 destroyer I was once familiar with, though it's a mixture of imperial and metric hex screws. The quickest way to access the lenses would be to lift the lid and smash the glass with a heavy hammer. I removed a hundred or so screws instead, mostly the wrong ones, but I need to remove weight anyway.

There's a substantial looking stepper driven carriage in there - those bars are an inch diameter (lenses removed):

It cost £30,000 in 1996. Maybe the same as 4GB of DDR? That's about $50 now. I was robbed!
_________________
Chris R

[RobertOToole]

[dolmadis]

Found these (no connection)

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rodenstock-S-3-lens-set-from-a-Scitex-scanner-macro-use-Leica-M39/192617874288?hash=item2cd8eb8370:g:ioAAAOSwhXhbZe7M

BR

John

[ray_parkhurst]

I've seen these "Rodenstock Scitex Lotem" lenses for sale for some time:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Rodenstock-Germany-Lotem-Lens-for-Scitex-machine-4401-374-000-20-A/252004557559?hash=item3aaca462f7%3Ag%3Af%7EIAAOSw%7EgRViTNE&_sacat=0&_nkw=scitex+lens&_from=R40&rt=nc&_trksid=m570.l1313

Anyone buy one, or have any further info. They are too expensive to experiment with (for me anyway...) but I'd be interested to know more about them.

[Lou Jost]

I have two sets of Scitex-3 lenses (67mm, 89mm, 110mm) and a set of Scitex-2 lenses (same focal lengths) recently rescued from several Scitex scanners. I'll be selling two of these sets. They are actually on eBay right now on my brother's account at very high prices until I fully test them and figure out what they are really worth.

It makes sense to treat them as a set, since each successive focal length is designed to cover about half the FOV of the next-higher one. The 110mm lens is designed to capture a 35mm slide; the 89mm lens is to capture a medium format slide, and the 67mm lens is for 4 inch x 5 inch large format slides. All are designed for reduction, so they have to be reversed for macro work. They are all around f/5 so not very good reversed on small sensors at the reciprocal of their designed optimum m. These are best on FF cameras and they cover the frame well.

So far I have tested them reversed on FF at 1x, 1.4x, 2x, 3x, and 4x. I also compared them (when appropriate) to the Printing Nikkor 105A, the Myutron 0.7x reversed for 1.4x, the famous DiMage 5400, and the Lomo 3.7x at 4x. Test results refer to stacked images, using DMap and high contrast setting.

1x: At 100%, PN105A was sharper and chromatically cleaner than the 110mm, but the difference was not huge. EDIT: 110mm should have been reversed!

1.4x: 110mm slightly soft but chromatically clean (EDIT: Should have been reversed!), 89mm excellent, slightly edging out Myutron. (Dimage and Lomo not tested at this m; in retrospect I should have tested the DiMage, which might well have beat the 89mm).

2x: 110mm poor (EDIT; Should have been reversed!). 67mm, 89mm, Myutron, and Dimage were similar in the center, but 67mm (especially) and 89mm (to a small degree) had some reddish haloes around the brightest white moth scale edges on black backgrounds. 89mm and DiMage were sharp out to the corners, unlike Myutron. DiMage wins at this m. (Lomo not tested at this m.)

3x: 67mm and DiMage (the only lenses tested at this m) were fairly close but DiMage is slightly sharper, significantly so in the edges.

4x: 67mm had slight red haloes around extremely bright edges. Lomo and Dimage were cleaner. Lomo beat DiMage; chromatically cleaner and also sharper, even in corners. (Other lenses not tested at this m since it is far from their designed optimum).

In summary, the Scitex lenses are good on FF at the reciprocal of their designed m, but not good general-purpose lenses. Nearly apochromatic at designed m, except for faint red haloes around very bright white edges in some cases.

It was interesting to see how good the DiMage and Lomo are!
_________________
Lou Jost
www.ecomingafoundation.wordpress.com
www.loujost.com