Upload & Sell: On
Hi Tom, I read through this whole thread but still have some theoretical questions if you can help me with.
I have a 105mm micro and a 200mm micro (for Nikon). Both offer 1:1 and are great lenses. Now I also read somewhere else that attaching another lens in reverse of a normal lens will give the setup greater magnification and the formula is the mm for lens mounted on camera divided by the mm for the reverse-mounted lens. So a 50mm in front of the 105mm will give approximately 2x lifesize, and 4x on the 200mm, etc. I tried this which seems to be true and the difference is working distance.
From a theoretical quality perspective, what's the magnification for reverse-mounting a 50mm directly on the camera body? Also, let's say if I want 4x lifesize, what's the difference between mounting a 50mm on a 200mm versus a 24mm on a 105mm? I did some tests and they seemed inconclusive, and given the shallow DOF I fear any difference I see was because of my skills and not the optical path.
Also, what's the difference between reverse-mounting a 24mm, 50mm, 100mm, etc.? Magnification factor too?
Glee , welcome and glad you took the time to follow this thread . Here it is in a nut shell and without all the tech stuff and not paying to much attention to the exactness of magnification and exact working distances . If you look at the link below and look at the mag differences of different 50 you will see that they vary a lot .
So you can see that it will depend on what you have . I will say that generally a 50 rev direct can give you close to or above 1to1 a 28mm 2.5 to1 , 24mm 3 to1 and back to say a 35mm 2 to1. In regards to a 50 on a 200 or a 24 on a 105 the working distance should be close to the same . and the DOF will be the same if the mag is the same , at least that is how it should work .
hope this helps .