>>3048660Lol, spot the guy that's never done film scanning.
It's no secret that fuji lenses don't have flat field sharpness, they're not designed as technical macro lenses, a £50 enlarger lens will easily out perform anything fuji make. Just look at an mtf graph for fuji, that shows how much softer at the edges they are than the centre, oh and vuescan/adobe can't fix the distortion from a fuji raw, and you have to use a raw to do the invert process.
I've done a lot of dslr film scanning and I've put in enough research to release a commercial product, here's a list of lenses I've tried that all failed to come close to the performance of a cheap enlarger lens. They had worse sharpness, distortion, aberrations & colour reproduction.
Pentax 50mm 3.5 macro
Cosina 90mm 3.5 macro
Sigma dgm ex 50mm 2.8 macro
Sony fe 55mm 1.8 & extension tubes
Canon fd 50mm macro
Nikon 50mm 1.4 & extension tubes
Also
>outperform anything photographed on film in terms of resolution.Oh sweetie, no, possibly if you mapped one grain to one pixel, but even my rig sees benefits doing 4:1 reproduction on 135 (stitch of 6 photos to one frame of 135)
And a longer lens works better than a wide one as it helps obfuscate any texture behind or in front of the film plane.
>>3048887Lol, samefag.
