rev 50 revisited.
/forum/topic/663112/7

1       2       3              7      
8
       9       10       11       end

Tom Hicks
Registered: Feb 16, 2003
Total Posts: 23155
Country: United States

glee719 wrote:
Wow so even 50mm from different lines differ in magnification? Strange. I guess it's just what works best by trial. Thanks! Perhaps I can do some tests with the Nikon combinations and post results soon too. Thanks!

I forgot one key question. In single reversed lens setup (directly to camera body) you set the focus to infinity. But if you attach a reversed lens to another normally mounted lens, you can still control aperture (of the normally mounted lens) via camera body but do you still leave the reversed lens in wide open and infinity? There is also a slight play in adjusting focus on the normally mounted lens but is it also best to set to infinity and move the camera instead?


Yes and Yes



glee719
Registered: Nov 29, 2009
Total Posts: 619
Country: United States

Thanks! Now the trick is to find time to play with it!



byteseller
Registered: Jun 18, 2003
Total Posts: 1857
Country: United States

Tom,

Thanks for starting this thread! A while back I think it triggered part of my old teen memories of messing around with reversed lenses so I decided to try it again. I picked up a $20 Nikon 28mm Series E locally and got an adapter to put it on my nikon camera. You have to shoot 1920s style, manual focus, manual aperture closing (you have to decide if you do this before or after MFing), not ttl (at least on my camera), RAZOR thin depth of field, etc, etc. but the results are really remarkable and at about 2.x"1. To be honest being able to get results like this from $30 worth of 30 year old equipment has made me (for now at least) reconsider paying several 100s for a dedicated macro lens since this in some ways (getting CLOSE) is better than I can get from those lenses that cost 30X as much. Thanks again!

From a recent outing with my 28mm-- which by the way was shot with the built-in flash from my D90 as I like to keep this things simple on my hikes (&yes you can do this since the lens is VERY short and actually gives you a decent working distance)...







Hightraxx
Registered: Feb 24, 2007
Total Posts: 3156
Country: United States

I see I have a long ways to go to get the type of shots you have here, my dragon flies I posted are not even close to your quality of photo's but I will work at it and see if i can do better on my next post.

Norm



dubaifor
Registered: Sep 29, 2010
Total Posts: 27
Country: N/A

The two flies getting jiggy is probably one of the most disturbing thing Ive ever seen. Thanks for that, I wont sleep tonight. Great macro shot nonetheless.

http://www.photographer.ae



goomadeer
Registered: Dec 23, 2010
Total Posts: 61
Country: Australia

Tom Hicks wrote:
joe C. wrote:
thanks for the advice on upping my f/stop to f/22 or higher while using diopters tom. I just posted some water drop shots I did after you told that to me and I love the depth of field it gave me. i posted in the thread "lets see your best water drops"
joe C.


Joe your welcome, I'll go take a look.


Gday Tom/Joe - I'm just wondering how you set aperture with a reversed lens - or do you shoot wide open? I've got a new 50/1.8 AF nikon - would this work ok on my D7000? I see 52mm reverse adaptors can be got for very cheap on ebay...

And whats this diopter you speak of?

So many questions...

I have a macro 105mm but you seem to be getting a lot close with the reversed 50mm?



Tom Hicks
Registered: Feb 16, 2003
Total Posts: 23155
Country: United States

Old Minolta MD or MC lens , Pentax Takumars , Nikon AI AIS lens or Old Canon FL FD lens work best , because the aperture rings work manually. you shoot at f8 to f16 and bright sun is best , so you can see . those apertures get dark and you need good light the see to focus.



Zichar
Registered: May 13, 2009
Total Posts: 3530
Country: Singapore

If I may add, the Nikon 50mm f1.8 should work as it's an AF-D lens, i.e. it's got the aperture ring.



kaiserkudo
Registered: Aug 18, 2010
Total Posts: 176
Country: Australia

Quick (and probably dumb) question - is it more advantageous to do this lens reversal on a crop sensor camera? Is it going to give you slightly more magnification?

And when looking for a 28mm - am I correct in thinking that it doesn't have to be the best, highest performing one you can find. Reason I ask is with the last pic posted above - all the reviews I could find spoke of the Nikon Series E as vastly inferior to the AIS version with CRC - yet that photo above using the "cheap" Series E Nikkor is pretty damm amazing.
In this field I guess its more about technique and perseverance rather than the equipment?

Lastly, if people are hand holding these rigs - how do you manage operation of the aperture, especially if you're shooting at f/8-f/16, and with tubes - I'd imagine it would be really dark. Do hold the aperture wide open with a finger, and let if snap closed just before you release the shutter?



kaiserkudo
Registered: Aug 18, 2010
Total Posts: 176
Country: Australia

Anyway here my newbie attempt from this afternoon hand holding a 35mm reversed again my camera. (waiting for my reverse adapter and flash bracket to arrive.)

Don't know what these little fellas are called -perhaps someone can make an ID for me?

Still need to work on getting the eyes in focus -heaps of fun tho!



"[/IMG]







Zichar
Registered: May 13, 2009
Total Posts: 3530
Country: Singapore

The Series E are less regarded because of coating, plasticky build and reduced number of elements. In normal shooting, the lack of a multicoated front element introduces flare and loss of contrast in your images
However, since you're gonna reverse mount it, that makes the front element coating to be redundant for your usage.

There's plenty of 28mm lenses. CRC, Close Range Correction allows for better optimization at close-up distances - again for when the lens is mounted the normal way.
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html

For information on MF Nikon lenses, Curtis (CGrindahl) has an excellent thread going on in the Nikon subforum.

(I don't quite subscribe to the Series E lenses being inferior; there are plenty of gems in the Series E lenses: the negative is beneficial for bargain hunters. Makes them light, cheap and good if you are MF inclined. The 75-150mm E is one that comes to mind, the 50mm E makes a great pancake lens)

Read about Series E lenses here (mir is a great resource btw):
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/emfgfg20/eserieslenses/index.htm



kaiserkudo
Registered: Aug 18, 2010
Total Posts: 176
Country: Australia

Thanks. I have been dabbling in a few of those resources which are a great help.



khatch
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Total Posts: 204
Country: United States

I've read about the reverse lens technique a long time ago but never tried it until now.

My old beat up freebie watch. A 50 2.5 Macro reversed - handheld to the camera with no mount. I racked the focus all the way out. This is full frame.



P.S. I think I finally found an avatar.



Bill Hornaday
Registered: Feb 05, 2011
Total Posts: 89
Country: United States

With the reversal ring method Am I correct that you will get bigger magnification with a wide angle lens (35mm) than a medium (50mm) or a reversed telephoto (100+mm)?
Thanks in advance,

Bill



bwhealon
Registered: Feb 21, 2010
Total Posts: 62
Country: United States

That sounds correct to me.



Alex53
Registered: Sep 07, 2004
Total Posts: 1585
Country: Gibraltar

Awesome images on this thread.

I have a question.

What differences can I expect between using a reversed 50mm straight on the camera and using it reversed on my 100mm macro lens?

How about using a wider lens (like the 18-55mm canon kit lens) reversed on my macro lens?



Tom Hicks
Registered: Feb 16, 2003
Total Posts: 23155
Country: United States

The 50 rev, straight to camera body will give you approx 1to1 or more depending on the 50mm lens used . The 50 on the 100 will give you 2 to1 , you get that by dividing 50 into 100 if you use a 24mm you get 4to1 . When using the lens straight to cam you have to set the lens at the f stop you intend to use and you will be looking thru that f stop the image can be dark depending on the light. attached to to 100 you would set the rev lens to the widest opening or f stop and the 100 would control the f stop used . the image you see thru the came will be brighter. That in a nut shell is the only difference.



Bill Hornaday
Registered: Feb 05, 2011
Total Posts: 89
Country: United States

This picture is with a reversed Nikon 35mm lens. It's my first experiment. I found I couldn't focus at all, and was left with the lean and shoot method of focus. The lack of focusing was a problem for me. Have others found this problem with focusing? It seems like you should be able to focus, since you are varying the distance of the lens from the sensor or is this true? Thanks in advance

Bill



Bill Hornaday
Registered: Feb 05, 2011
Total Posts: 89
Country: United States

Excuse me. The pic above was with the 50mm Nikon lens reversed. Sorry for the misinfo, but my question is still the same.

Bill



Tom Hicks
Registered: Feb 16, 2003
Total Posts: 23155
Country: United States

Bill with the rev lens and even the $1000.00 Canon MP-E 65 you have to move your body in and out to focus.



1       2       3              7      
8
       9       10       11       end