rev 50 revisited.
/forum/topic/663112/1

1      
2
       3              10       11       end

Genes Home
Registered: Mar 12, 2008
Total Posts: 1583
Country: United States

great post and great photos.

I have just been using my SIgma 150mm and extension tubes.

Now will have to out to B&H and find an old manual lens and a reversing ring and give it a try.

thanks for the examples and info.



CDalessandro
Registered: Jan 11, 2008
Total Posts: 4487
Country: United States

Outstanding work!!!...wow, I am shopping right now for a reversing ring...Thanks Tom for all your priceless information. Thank you!!!



David Frette
Registered: Aug 01, 2003
Total Posts: 338
Country: United States

Tom, good challenge. How ya been?


You don't _need_ rings guys. You can hold a lens up to the camera. In fact, I've taken some with a 20-35mm O77 lens hand held to the camera. I have a 35-80mm lens that doesn't have a ring, can flip it around, and can hand hold it up to my camera.


example:



digitalbug30d
Registered: Apr 01, 2008
Total Posts: 4278
Country: United States

the spiders creep me out



mananetwork
Registered: Feb 13, 2005
Total Posts: 563
Country: Canada

Hi Tom, thanks for sharing your secrets. I'm looking at getting into macro photography and I have a couple questions;

1. What is the benefit of having an actual macro lens compared to this?
2. What are the limitations to the reverse lens?

Thank you!



mananetwork
Registered: Feb 13, 2005
Total Posts: 563
Country: Canada

^ Anybody?



who me
Registered: Oct 09, 2004
Total Posts: 1897
Country: United States

How come it seems like no local camera shops carry a reversing ring? I called most of th ecamera shops in my area and no one has one. It is not like they take up much storage space to keep 1 or 2 in stock.. I really didn't want to buy it online. Oh well



who me
Registered: Oct 09, 2004
Total Posts: 1897
Country: United States

mananetwork wrote:
Hi Tom, thanks for sharing your secrets. I'm looking at getting into macro photography and I have a couple questions;

1. What is the benefit of having an actual macro lens compared to this?
2. What are the limitations to the reverse lens?

Thank you!


I would think that a Macro lens is much more versatile. You can use it for normal photography as well as it communicates to the camera so the aperture works automatically as well as all exposure info is there so you can use automatic modes (Full auto, Av, Tv...). Not to mention, you have a MUCH larger subject to lens working distance and focus range.
With the reversed lens, you lose most of the conveniences above.
Of course, the Macro lens costs a lot more than a $10 reversing ring.



Tom Hicks
Registered: Feb 16, 2003
Total Posts: 23156
Country: United States

Mananetwork , who me is right. the true macro lens is always the most covenant way to go. 'there are many ,many ways to do macro and the rev. to camera is just one of those. Like I have said , not everyone can afford a true macro lens , but they can get excellent results with the other methods that are well within most peoples grasp monetarily. a rev setup can be had for cheap under 25 $ .



mananetwork
Registered: Feb 13, 2005
Total Posts: 563
Country: Canada

Thanks guys!



Techuser
Registered: May 19, 2008
Total Posts: 186
Country: Brazil

Here are some using a 44mm on a canon A510











mananetwork
Registered: Feb 13, 2005
Total Posts: 563
Country: Canada

How do you reverse a lens on a point and shoot, don't they already have a lens on it?



Enrico Gregora
Registered: Nov 26, 2006
Total Posts: 152
Country: United States

Wow! Wow! Wow! Tom you are a genius!
Me on the other hand ... well ... I've just forked $600 on a macro lens!
Ciao
Enrico



who me
Registered: Oct 09, 2004
Total Posts: 1897
Country: United States

Anyone that uses a reversed Canon FD 50mm out there, I have a question. Do you have any method for holding the sprung lever in the position that allows the aperture ring to work manually. I used a paperclip as a temporary solution for about 5 minutes but I want a more viable solution.
Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks



Tom Harpstead
Registered: Jul 08, 2007
Total Posts: 948
Country: United States

Who Me

I cut a hole in the rear cover. When the cover is attached it does a nice job of keeping the spring leaver in the aperture control mode. Also it does offer some some protection of the rear element, and possibly some form of shade.

Thomas



who me
Registered: Oct 09, 2004
Total Posts: 1897
Country: United States

Thomas, I was thinking about getting a rear lens cover and doing just that to see if it will work. Thank you for confirming that it will work. How large of a hole did you cut out. I would assume larger than the rear element size but not the full diameter of the rear cap.



Tom Hicks
Registered: Feb 16, 2003
Total Posts: 23156
Country: United States

who me wrote:
Thomas, I was thinking about getting a rear lens cover and doing just that to see if it will work. Thank you for confirming that it will work. How large of a hole did you cut out. I would assume larger than the rear element size but not the full diameter of the rear cap.


Here is a shot of a Canon factory cap it wil lgive you an idea of how large a hole you might want to make.








adamfilip
Registered: Dec 09, 2004
Total Posts: 617
Country: Canada

I have been using a 70-200 2.8 non is with a canon 500D closeup filter
and ive been getting good results

I do have a 50 1.4 and I just tried to hold it against the body of my camera

I took two crappy shots to see how close it gets compared to the 70-200 setup
and im surprised see below my two crappy shots

70-200 2.8 with 500D closeup - max








50 1.4 rev on 40D






Working distance on the 70-200 is much better (12") compared to the 50 rev (3")


who me
Registered: Oct 09, 2004
Total Posts: 1897
Country: United States

Tom, thanks for the shot of the hole in the cover. I am going out tomorrow to get another lens cover that I can hack up. I don't want to use my current one. And your Canon lens looks a little older than mine.



Tom Hicks
Registered: Feb 16, 2003
Total Posts: 23156
Country: United States

who me wrote:
Tom, thanks for the shot of the hole in the cover. I am going out tomorrow to get another lens cover that I can hack up. I don't want to use my current one. And your Canon lens looks a little older than mine.


You are right this is an older FL lens , the FD's work best with the little hood attached for ease of f stop control.



1      
2
       3              10       11       end