rev 50 revisited. - FM Forums

Moderated by: Tom Hicks

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Macro World Resource

FM Forums | Macro World | Join Image Upload

1 2 3 4

end

rev 50 revisited.

lsman
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.5 #1 · rev 50 revisited.

Get a chance and did this.
Thanks

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Sep 09, 2009 at 03:43 PM

BillupsPhotography
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.5 #2 · rev 50 revisited.

This looks like a great vacation from all of the soccer/football teams I've been shooting this month. I'm going to try to dig out my old minolta and see what lenses I had for it.

Sep 21, 2009 at 11:57 AM

botw
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.5 #3 · rev 50 revisited.

Just received my fotodiox reversing ring today. Can't wait to try it out...

Does anyone know whether you can use the depth of field preview button trick on a 40D with an EFS lens. I don't want to take it off and damage the camera or lens. Otherwise, I guess I'll shoot wide open for now.

Thanks all.

Oct 07, 2009 at 04:15 PM

ersatz
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.5 #4 · rev 50 revisited.

I have a few questions regarding this reverse set-up. First of all it seems some properties have a inverse relation while others maintain the properties of a lens that is normally mounted.

For instance, focal length is inverse to magnification so the shorter the FL the greater hte magnification.

But aperture is still the same, so a high aperture f/8 still results in a greater dof than say f/1.4, correct?

Also, I noticed in the other thread comparing 50mm lenses that magnification differed quite significantly, why? Is it due to the lenses normal max magnification? Would a lens with a greater magnification also have greater magnification when reverse or would it be inversed? Or is this completely unrelated?

What would happen if I take my macro lens and reverse mount it? At 1:1 with a 60mm macro would the magnification remain unchanged? What if it is at 1:3, would this effect the magnification and how?

Essentially I want to move beyond 1:1 magnification. But with my Sigma 70mm it is already too long at 1:1 so I cannot use a hotshoe mounted flash or onboard as the lens casts a shadow thus requiring a off shoe bracket. But with an inverse 28mm or 35mm I get greater than 1:1 magnification and the lens is incredibly short so I can use my hotshoe mounted flash or even the onboard one.

So, now I'm looking at some 28 and 35mm primes and wondering how I can determine which 28 or 35mm lens will provide the most magnification. Essentially, if I have 4 35mm lenses can I use max magnification or min focus distace to determine which lens will have the greatest magnification when reversed.

Oct 08, 2009 at 06:31 PM

Kenj8246
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.5 #5 · rev 50 revisited.

Saw this thread in the main part of the forum and remembered these shots I fooled around with a couple days ago. These were made by stacking/reversing a 50mm f1.8 on my 105mm f2.8 macro lens. Not the most technically perfect shots but the first one, especially, illustrate to me the insanely thin DOF we macro folks work with.

#1 Video card component

This image is copyrighted by the owner

#2 Same card, different components

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Thanks for looking,
Kenny

Oct 09, 2009 at 02:01 PM

MarcyJillGood
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.5 #6 · rev 50 revisited.

I have a really dumb question (at least I suspect it's dumb). There are discussions of several sizes of lenses being reversed (the part that normally holds the filter is mounted on the camera, right?). Well - the external optics on lenses are all different sizes, so do you need size-specific reversing rings? And what goes on the part that normally mounts on the camera?

I told you - dumb question. But heck, while I'm at it - here's more . . .

I have two old manual Minolta lenses (boy, I loved that old camera). One is a 45mm prime (I think it's 45mm - not more than 50mm), and I have a zoom lens - probably something like 28-75 or whatever they made back then; I'd have to check. I currently use Canon bodies. Can those old manual lenses be used for reversing?

If anyone has read this far - thanks! I appreciate any info I can get!

Marcy

Oct 11, 2009 at 01:18 AM

reno.peterson
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.5 #7 · rev 50 revisited.

Marcy, I picked up a reversing mount on E-bay for just at $20 + S&H, $23 total. The native thread on the mount to reverse to is 58mm, will fit the 50mm f/1.4, several of the 28-XX lenses, the 18-55 family and others. I also have a couple of manual lenses that I picked up a 49-58mm step up ring to mount an Olympus Zukio manual 50mm f/1.8. I've found the 50mm to be very good on either a FF or wither crop, 1.3x, My 1D Classic and 1.6x, my 30D, depending on the subject. I'd like to find a very inexpensive 28-XX lens to get more magnification on the wide end. Very neat concept, and don't need a ton of money...

The manual lenses are a little more convenient to change the aperture in mid focus/shoot. With the auto focus lenses, you have to mount the lens normal, adjust the aperture and use the DOF Preview, and while holding that unmount the lens, and then reverse mount it. Poses another problem when using apertures stopped past f/5.6 cause the VF is very dark.

Oct 11, 2009 at 01:34 AM

ersatz
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.5 #8 · rev 50 revisited.

MarcyJillGood wrote:
I have a really dumb question (at least I suspect it's dumb). There are discussions of several sizes of lenses being reversed (the part that normally holds the filter is mounted on the camera, right?). Well - the external optics on lenses are all different sizes, so do you need size-specific reversing rings? And what goes on the part that normally mounts on the camera?

I told you - dumb question. But heck, while I'm at it - here's more . . .

I have two old manual Minolta lenses (boy, I loved that old camera). One is a 45mm prime (I think it's 45mm - not more than 50mm), and I have a zoom lens - probably something like 28-75 or whatever they made back then; I'd have to check. I currently use Canon bodies. Can those old manual lenses be used for reversing?

If anyone has read this far - thanks! I appreciate any info I can get!

Marcy

You can use those lenses. First you need to find the filter size and buy the appropriate reverse ring. Let's assume they have 58mm filter size, obviously you buy the 58mm reverse ring. Now suppose you want to use some Canon FD lenses. Well most are 55mm so you would need a 55mm to 58mm step up ring. Now, If you're like me and bought the 52mm reverse ring then you would need to buy a 55mm to 52mm step down ring. I find the step up or down rings are roughly half the cost of the reverse ring adapters but it might not be worth the hassle trying to figure out if you need a step up or step down ring so just buy the reverse rings in various sizes.

Oct 11, 2009 at 05:44 AM

MarcyJillGood
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.5 #9 · rev 50 revisited.

Thanks, Reno & Erstatz - this is very helpful. I've heard good things about reversing a lens to do macro, but it's seemed a bit intimidating to me, without understanding more about how it works. Gonna get my nerve up . . .

Marcy

Oct 11, 2009 at 06:43 PM

ersatz
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.5 #10 · rev 50 revisited.

I got a question about the effects of step up rings. They would act as mini extension tubes so would this increase maginifcation or decrease it, as some properties are inversed with reverse mount. I have several lenses with 49mm filter threads. I have a 58mm EOS reverse ring and will be using a 49-52 and a 52-58mm step up rings to attach the lens. This adds at least 3/8 extension as opposed to getting a 49mm EOS reverse ring. So, I want to know if this added "extension" will increase magnification or decrease. I realize it may only affect magnification slightly but I paid a bit extra for a 20mm lens as opposed to a 24mm so to utilize the magnification I would rahter spend a few bucks more to get the proper EOS reverse ring than use step up filters if they hurt magnification. Thanks.

Oct 27, 2009 at 07:44 PM

Tom Hicks
Offline
Moderator
Image Upload: On

p.5 #11 · rev 50 revisited.

ersatz wrote:
I got a question about the effects of step up rings. They would act as mini extension tubes so would this increase maginifcation or decrease it, as some properties are inversed with reverse mount. I have several lenses with 49mm filter threads. I have a 58mm EOS reverse ring and will be using a 49-52 and a 52-58mm step up rings to attach the lens. This adds at least 3/8 extension as opposed to getting a 49mm EOS reverse ring. So, I want to know if this added "extension" will increase magnification or decrease. I realize it may only affect magnification slightly but I paid a bit extra for a 20mm lens as opposed to a 24mm so to utilize the magnification I would rahter spend a few bucks more to get the proper EOS reverse ring than use step up filters if they hurt magnification. Thanks.

they will increase mag.

Oct 29, 2009 at 01:37 AM

Dpic_arctic
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.5 #12 · rev 50 revisited.

Great set, Tom!

Nov 10, 2009 at 07:04 PM

mactuna
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.5 #13 · rev 50 revisited.

Hi,

New to this so sorry if this was already answered. I've read the whole topic, very intersting.
First my hat to Tom, the detail and effort into this is magnificent. My sincere thanks.

Second, my question: I believe the easiest way to use a rev lens in macro is to have a EF lens attached say a EF 50mm, then adapter ring male to male , then the FD 50mm reversed ?

This way we can choose Aperture in camera and let the FD wide open?
If true...the FD could be an EF ?
I have a 70-210 EF and a 50 1.4 EF. Both 58mm diameter.
With the 70-210 mounted on camera+adapter+50mm rev , this should be quite a easy to use combo? Of course..the minimum mag would be 70mm so DOF can be shallow but the working distance would be bigger than a single 50 rev , correct?

Thank you for your comments,
Cheers

Nov 13, 2009 at 04:36 PM


FM Forums \| Macro World \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 4 5 end