Took some time today to run a comparison between some lens , I started out thinking I would try to find the lens that might be very soft in the corners , but for the most part they all are . Thinking about this further I have come to the conclusion that for bug and flower stuff it doesn't really matter as DOF in the corners for the most part is non existent. What I did find is a great variance in the mag rates for the different lens , specially the wide variance in the 50mm lens . All shots on tripod , trying hard to keep everything on the same plane, all lens set at f 8 and focus set at infinity . All focus done manually ( yes my eyes got tired. ) You can come to your own conclusion.
Hope this helps some, it was a lot of work .
Edited by Tom Hicks on Feb 26, 2008 at 04:59 PM GMT
thanks for this Tom. I have been considering a nice little 28mm for reversing, as it gets so much closer and is alot wider than my nifty fifty.
thanks again!
Good comparison Tom- suprised at the different mags from the 50mm lens series- were they all at the same focus setting on the lens (ie either min or max) ?
LordV wrote:
Good comparison Tom- suprised at the different mags from the 50mm lens series- were they all at the same focus setting on the lens (ie either min or max) ?
Brian V.
Yes everything was set at infinity. It did produce some surprises .
Could you show how you mount the lens to the body reversed? I've seen lens to lens, but not lens to body. Is this a regularly available adapter to the filter? I have a 18-250mm that I held to the body at 250mm and the mag was huge! What would 250mm reversed produce (what's the calc.)? I have a 60mm macro for quality work (nice lens), but the 250mm was fun to play with. I'd love to have a more secure mount than my hands;-)
Eric Gottesman wrote:
Could you show how you mount the lens to the body reversed? I've seen lens to lens, but not lens to body. Is this a regularly available adapter to the filter? I have a 18-250mm that I held to the body at 250mm and the mag was huge! What would 250mm reversed produce (what's the calc.)? I have a 60mm macro for quality work (nice lens), but the 250mm was fun to play with. I'd love to have a more secure mount than my hands;-)
Tom, could you give me the info of the ring or adapter you used for Nikon as shown above in the picture?
I am very much interested in trying this out...man, impressive...
Thanks in advance,
Abe
I have used quite a few 50mm lenses reversed and yes, there can be a big difference in magnifications.
It has been a while since I had as many as 5 or 6 to shoot alongside each other but I think it was lenses with more glass in them that had greater magnification (or maybe that was just how it worked out with the lenses I tried).
The Pentax 50 1.2 in particular I think from memory seemed to have a bit higher magnification. I used the lens to death so don't have it any more but if anyone has it and a few others, it might be worth looking at.
One lens I really want to try reversed is the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8.
It will be a pain to use as I wont be able to focus it via focus ring and will have to set the aperture by removing it from the camera while still turned on but it is such a nice lens that I have just ordered a reversing ring to use it (on a K to E adapter to get a bit more magnification as well as on my 2x macro converter).
I might then get a cheap E mount reversing ring as well if it works ok.
I have a reversing ring but only a 50mm to put on it. I've been thinking about trying a shorter lens to see what happens. To my eyes, the reverse 50mm isn't worth the hassle when compared to the 105 f/2.8D especially if on an extension tube or three.
