No it does not hurt the camera. Removing the lens with the DOF preview button depressed prevents the sending of the signal that re-opens the aperture when the DOF preview button is released ( because the lens has already been removed ).
I have done this on Rebels, 30D's, 5d's, and 1dmkII's with no problems. When the lens is remounted the aperture returns to normal. You will hear a *shhhhhkk* sound as the aperture reopens just as if you depressed or released the DOF preview button with the lens attached.
Another stupid question... if I had both 58mm and 52mm lenses that I would like to use, am I correct in thinking that it would be better to get the reversing ring in the 52mm size. Seems to me that getting the 58mm then using a 52 to 58 step up ring would cause vignetting. So would it be better to get the 52mm then use a 58 to 52 step down ring? What are your thoughts?
First post here. Thanks to Tom and everyone for the ideas and inspiration in this thread.
I have a Nikon D5000 DSLR, so I dug out my old Pentax 35mm film equipment which includes a 50mm and a 24mm lens. I did a few test shots by hand-holding the reversed lens, which gave encouraging results. The working distance on the 24mm is very short, so I have been mostly using the 50mm.
My reversing ring arrived and a made some decent shots around the backyard. One issue that I've noticed - If I set the aperture small, say f14 to f22, I get a hot spot in the center of the image. Is this common? It's not really a problem to avoid those apertures, but I'm curious.
Another question - with a reversed lens, I can't tell much difference looking through the viewfinder regardless of where the focus is set. Does it matter, or is there any theoretical difference?
I have also ordered a coupler ring so I can attach the reversed lens to my AF lenses. I'm hoping the 24mm may be more useful then. Will I be able to focus normally or use autofocus in that configuration? It does increase the working distance, correct?
In regard to your aperture question I believe using a reversed lens changes a number of ways the light passes through to the sensor.
At smaller apertures it might start to infringe on the image circle that is being projected into your camera. A reversed lens may change the distance between the sensor and aperture plane making the effect more pronounced especially when using rings / extenders combined with small apertures. It may be that the smallest apertures are causing darker corners and auto exposure is trying to compensate?
You may also be able to change this distance by rotating the focus ring and playing with it to find the most ideal settings. In the reversed position is the rear element close to protruding? The coatings on that element might be more prone to flare.
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?
glee719 wrote:
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 .
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?
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?...Show more →
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)...
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.
The two flies getting jiggy is probably one of the most disturbing thing I´ve ever seen. Thanks for that, I won´t sleep tonight. Great macro shot nonetheless.
Tom Hicks wrote:
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?
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.
