There's only so much you can do with a reversed lens, it's pretty restricting. However i've gotten a lot of interesting and good results from my expiriments with it.
bellyface wrote:
I think I'll be looking for a 35-70, or even a 28-70 (old style)
The 35-70 or 35-80 will be considerably cheaper than the 28-70. Besides, it would be a shame to wreck such a nice lens. (The 28-70 and 28-70 II lenses were the sharpest non-L zooms Canon ever produced.)
moondigger wrote:
The 35-70 or 35-80 will be considerably cheaper than the 28-70. Besides, it would be a shame to wreck such a nice lens. (The 28-70 and 28-70 II lenses were the sharpest non-L zooms Canon ever produced.)
I agree, but if the front lens element is scratched, and focus is dead, I won't feel so bad about breaking it some more. I used to have the 28-70 II, and it was very sharp.
Very funny indeed! Without the name is would still be good but now it's great.
tchotchke wrote:
There's only so much you can do with a reversed lens, it's pretty restricting. However i've gotten a lot of interesting and good results from my expiriments with it.
Bellyface, I want to thank you for posting this thread. I read with interest when you first posted, realizing that I had this lens (EF 35-80), and had borrowed it to a friend about ten years ago. He was not using it, and I just received it back last night. Took a few shots this morning and I was floored by the potential of this solution. Now I don't feel so bad about selling my 100mm macro.
pardon my ignorance here.. but what is the difference between using this technique (front element removed) versus a reversed 50mm?
How does this setup compares with let's say a 90mm/100mm macro lens?
(including focusing distance, etc)
thanks
Well, for some folks who don't have a 50 they can reverse, on the body or on a lens, the idea of spending $20 - $30 on a crappy ol' rebel lens and making it an extreme macro lens, keeping all the electronics, lens/body communications in tact, sure sounds enticing I would say. I would never say that this is a clear alternative to a true macro lens, but for what it would cost you, It's worth it. If you reverse a 50mm directly on a body, you lose all technical data between the lens/body, you also have to manually stop-down meter. Not so with this get up. Just dial in the desired F stop on the body. Depth of field preview also works. And its all recorded in the EXIF.
bellyface wrote:
Well, for some folks who don't have a 50 they can reverse, on the body or on a lens, the idea of spending $20 - $30 on a crappy ol' rebel lens and making it an extreme macro lens, keeping all the electronics, lens/body communications in tact, sure sounds enticing I would say. I would never say that this is a clear alternative to a true macro lens, but for what it would cost you, It's worth it. If you reverse a 50mm directly on a body, you lose all technical data between the lens/body, you also have to manually stop-down meter. Not so with this get up. Just dial in the desired F stop on the body. Depth of field preview also works. And its all recorded in the EXIF....Show more →
Yes I realize this does not replace a true macro lens
When I had the 50mm reversed, the dof preview button and mettering also work. They only affect the lens mounted to the camera and not the 50mm.
>>>> I guess my main question is in regards to focusing distance and DOF. With the reversed 50 setup, the DOF is paper thin. Focusing distance is about an inch.
I saw that xichlo used a different lens than the zoom, but he had sample shots at f3.5 and f22 and I could see a big difference in DOF.
(also the recent shots from toonhorse)
Is this also the case with the zoom?
lack of depth of field isn't as sever as reversing lenses, I think it may also be because of the minimum apertures being used, F4, F5.6. Pretty certain that's why.
bellyface wrote:
lack of depth of field isn't as sever as reversing lenses,
ok, thanks for the clarification
I think it may also be because of the minimum apertures being used, F4, F5.6. Pretty certain that's why.
When I reverse mount a lens, the 50mm has to be wide open for no vigneting, but the lens mounted to the camera can go down to f22 if you want and you get more DOF.. but still paper thin DOF
Tchothcke: count stapler is awesome. I love that picture. I also really like the weed picture. It makes a nice artistic print I bet (sort of an abstract feel to it).
I haven't tried the reversed 50 myself (i don't own a 50) but the DOF from the converted 35-70 isn't that bad at f22. It's still hard to handhold, but results with tripod have been really nice. It's definitely still narrow, but certainly not paper thin.
very creative indeed!