APO Corrected 1.35x Scanner Lens For $20 PrimeFilm 3650u

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

viktor j nilsson
Posts: 423
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:43 am
Location: Lund, Sweden

Post by viktor j nilsson »

Thanks for the tip, Robert. I've been looking for Minolta and Nikon scanners for a while, but the prices have become crazy (and I like bargains too much).

Inspired by this thread I put in an €10 offer for a Reflecta i-Scan 1800 without power adapter. The offer was prompty accepted. Looking forward to trying it out, based on Beatsys picture it looks like a very useful lens for that magnification range. Makes sense if it would be the same lens in the 1800 and 3200 scanner, and that they only updated the sensor.

Btw, the FCC ID of the i-Scan 1800 I bought is LXH-P0005-U.
This ID seems to be shared by several scanners: Mediax DiaScanner 1800, MICROTEK FilmScan 1800, PrimeFilm 1800, Pacific PrimeFilm 1800. Not sure how informative FCC IDs are, though.

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

viktor j nilsson wrote:Thanks for the tip, Robert. I've been looking for Minolta and Nikon scanners for a while, but the prices have become crazy (and I like bargains too much).

Inspired by this thread I put in an €10 offer for a Reflecta i-Scan 1800 without power adapter. The offer was prompty accepted. Looking forward to trying it out, based on Beatsys picture it looks like a very useful lens for that magnification range. Makes sense if it would be the same lens in the 1800 and 3200 scanner, and that they only updated the sensor.

Btw, the FCC ID of the i-Scan 1800 I bought is LXH-P0005-U.
This ID seems to be shared by several scanners: Mediax DiaScanner 1800, MICROTEK FilmScan 1800, PrimeFilm 1800, Pacific PrimeFilm 1800. Not sure how informative FCC IDs are, though.
Glad you found the thread useful.

Let us know how it works out and how you manage to mount it.

Thanks for the ID info.

Best,

Robert

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Well, I bought 2 of the 1800u, hoping one would work so I could use it to scan some 35mm slides from my Dad. The first arrived, powered-up properly, did one scan, and ended with a crunching noise. Second scan was a blank screen, so seems the linear motor failed. Perfect candidate for a lens donor...

I opened it up and took some measurements:

Working Distance: 68mm front of lens to slide
Total Extension: 56mm, including the ~10mm recess from lens case to lens surface
Sensor length: 22mm

So magnification is 22/35=0.61, and I believe the focal length is ~35mm.

I also bought a 3650u, and it is actually working to digitize slides! It is a surpisingly good scanner, and I am loathe to disassemble it. So no compo will happen for a while, and maybe not with this scanner. Probably wait to get another non-working one.

I have a question for Robert and others...has anyone tested older Nikon scanners to check their lens quality? I see some cheap older models that I must believe have decent lenses in them. Maybe not as good as the 8000/9000 or the MD5400, but probably still quite good. Any experiences appreciated so I don't waste $.

SURF
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:52 pm

Post by SURF »

ray_parkhurst wrote:I have a question for Robert and others...has anyone tested older Nikon scanners to check their lens quality?
And there are also popular Epson scanners...

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

ray_parkhurst wrote:
I have a question for Robert and others...has anyone tested older Nikon scanners to check their lens quality? I see some cheap older models that I must believe have decent lenses in them. Maybe not as good as the 8000/9000 or the MD5400, but probably still quite good. Any experiences appreciated so I don't waste $.
Not a bad idea Ray.

In 2002 the Scanner Nikkor IV ED scanner replaced the Coolscan III LS-30 that was Nikon rated for 2700 dpi, so technically it might be an okay source for a lens.

Now we just need to find someone to buy one.

Robert

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Compared to the PrimeFilm scanners the Nikon Coolscan III LS-30s are quite a bit more, about double the cost.

Nikon LS 2000 have the same 2700 dpi specs but also about the same prices on Ebay.

Robert

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

RobertOToole wrote:Compared to the PrimeFilm scanners the Nikon Coolscan III LS-30s are quite a bit more, about double the cost.

Nikon LS 2000 have the same 2700 dpi specs but also about the same prices on Ebay.

Robert
Are they better quality than the PrimeFilm? Maybe easier to mount? Actually, what's important for me is...do they have longer focal length?

Lou Jost
Posts: 5933
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Ray, are you sure the magnification is 0.6x and not around 1x? Some scanners cover the short dimension of the slide and move the slide along its long dimension. Then the lens doesn't have to cover such a wide area. Then m for this lens would be about 1x.

But moving parts require lots of mechanical precision. I suppose it is a trade-off like everything. But you said you thought the linear motor failed. This implies the slide moves. In that case it doesn't make much sense to move the slide in the short direction; if you move it in the long direction you only need a lens that covers 24mm, and that has to be a cheaper solution.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Lou Jost wrote:Ray, are you sure the magnification is 0.6x and not around 1x? Some scanners cover the short dimension of the slide and move the slide along its long dimension. Then the lens doesn't have to cover such a wide area. Then m for this lens would be about 1x.

But moving parts require lots of mechanical precision. I suppose it is a trade-off like everything. But you said you thought the linear motor failed. This implies the slide moves. In that case it doesn't make much sense to move the slide in the short direction; if you move it in the long direction you only need a lens that covers 24mm, and that has to be a cheaper solution.
A 2x2 slide can be inserted in either orientation, so these scanners need to be capable of scanning across the long or short dimension. In fact if you insert the slide in "landscape", which would be the normal way unless the picture was taken with the camera rotated 90-deg, the long dimension runs along the length of the line sensor.

Edited to add: I was shocked at the mechanical "imprecision" when I opened up the unit. There was a significant amount of backlash in the screw, and much rotation allowed in the head. I think the precision comes in that the head puts pressure on the film clamp, and thus stays a fixed distance from the film. The clamp also suppresses rotation. So the surface of the clamp is actually the main alignment vehicle. It is fairly ingenious, in that a poor quality linear motor can be used to achieve relatively high precision. This is very different from the Minolta and Nikon machines, which decouple the motor from the film holder/clamp. Their linear motors are much more precise.

Lou Jost
Posts: 5933
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

That's different from the scanners I know, which ask the user to insert the slide in a particular orientation. It is surprising that a manufacturer would do it differently, but maybe ease of use is more of factor than optical quality in lower-end scanners.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

RobertOToole wrote:Compared to the PrimeFilm scanners the Nikon Coolscan III LS-30s are quite a bit more, about double the cost.

Nikon LS 2000 have the same 2700 dpi specs but also about the same prices on Ebay.

Robert
I just picked up an LS-30 for $25 on eBay. There is also a LS-1000 for sale for $20. Is it worth testing?

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Lou Jost wrote:... But you said you thought the linear motor failed. This implies the slide moves. In that case it doesn't make much sense to move the slide in the short direction; if you move it in the long direction you only need a lens that covers 24mm, and that has to be a cheaper solution.
I missed this in last reply. Actually, the slide stays fixed, and the entire camera/lens/mirror assembly moves over/across it. The carriage "snout" sits on the slide carrier, and this is how they suppress the inaccuracies of the linear motor.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

The 3650u, which is a mid-range scanner, does the same thing, though since I have not stripped one yet I'm not sure of the particulars. Robert quotes 1.35x but I'm not sure how that is calculated. Perhaps the 3650 has a much longer sensor? Robert?

Lou Jost
Posts: 5933
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

But that doesn't change the very large amount of lost resolution if it has to accept slides in either orientation.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Lou Jost wrote:But that doesn't change the very large amount of lost resolution if it has to accept slides in either orientation.
So scanners like the Nikon 8000/9000 only support insertion in portrait orientation such that the line sensor is aligned with the 24mm dimension? I did strip an 8000 to get its lens (its linear motor was also broken) but it did not include the film holder so I could not verify slide orientation. But of course you can insert either direction, so it must be part of the "training" to use the scanner.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic