In article
>2 questions. I would like some collective wisdom on a subject about which
>I have had difficulty finding information. I am a historian and I read a
>lot of manuscripts from the 14'th century on microfilm. The quality of
>many of these reproductions stinks. I've got one pair of eyes and I can't
>go blind before I get tenure, so instead of paying for these films, I
>would like to spend next year photographing manuscripts myself. I'm sure
>that I can do a better job. So my first question is this: what is the
>absolute best lense for photographing documents with a 35mm SLR on
>high-resolution high-contrast B& W film using a copy stand and controlled
>lighting. Extremely good detail resolution on the edge as well as in the
>center of the image is important. Most of records I photograph are under
>one square meter in size. My second question is, what is the best lense at
>a reasonable price ($500.00 or less) if the absolute best lense is above
>that.
You cannot go wrong with the 60mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor in the close range -
it is VERY sharp! And it is affordably priced. I would combine it with
an F2 or F3 body (accurate, undistorted finder image - rare these days,
and nearly essential for good copy work) with a grid "E" screen and a waist-level finder (for more comfortable viewing with the camera on a
copy stand). BTW, the F2 has no meter with the WL finder, but the F3
does (though an incident-type hand meter is often more useful for copy
work).
Hope This Helps