Archive 2008 · Don't get caught
p.5 #1Don't get caught
I found a few reverse ring on amazon. Fotodiox.com is the seller of these reverse rings. They're about $6.99 each.
Jun 09, 2009 at 07:18 PM
p.5 #2Don't get caught
what brand is your reversing ring slash what brands are good
Jul 13, 2009 at 08:54 PM
p.5 #3Don't get caught
I'm just starting to get into macro and yes you can definitly get good shots without expensive setup however if you do it enough i think you will end up wanting a macro lens.
also if you have the right combo you dont even need the adapter My mom had an old film slr and happend to have a canon FD mount 50mm 1.8 prime its 52mm threads fit perfectly inside my Kit EF-s 18-55 IS (58mm threads) so i was able to just use electical tape to reverse mount it. took these shots using the popup flash on my XSi and a paper plate as a reflector:
http://spinnigncone.com/macro/IMG_2709.jpg
http://spinnigncone.com/macro/IMG_2722-c.jpg
http://spinnigncone.com/macro/IMG_2740-c.jpg
http://spinnigncone.com/macro/IMG_2747.jpg
http://spinnigncone.com/macro/IMG_2783.jpg
http://spinnigncone.com/macro/IMG_3141-ac.jpg
http://spinnigncone.com/macro/IMG_3146-a.jpg
http://spinnigncone.com/macro/IMG_3169-ca.jpg
http://spinnigncone.com/macro/IMG_3173-ca.jpg
http://spinnigncone.com/macro/IMG_3175-ca.jpg
it does work great but you get some falloff also there's the problem of framing. i can *only* shoot 1:1 i cant pull back and shoot any wider without removing the reversed lens leaving a gap between 1:1 and whatever the 18-55 can do.
Edit: i don't know how to make it not say its copyrighted, you can see them at http://spinnigncone.com/macro/
also if you have the right combo you dont even need the adapter My mom had an old film slr and happend to have a canon FD mount 50mm 1.8 prime its 52mm threads fit perfectly inside my Kit EF-s 18-55 IS (58mm threads) so i was able to just use electical tape to reverse mount it. took these shots using the popup flash on my XSi and a paper plate as a reflector:
http://spinnigncone.com/macro/IMG_2709.jpg
http://spinnigncone.com/macro/IMG_2722-c.jpg
http://spinnigncone.com/macro/IMG_2740-c.jpg
http://spinnigncone.com/macro/IMG_2747.jpg
http://spinnigncone.com/macro/IMG_2783.jpg
http://spinnigncone.com/macro/IMG_3141-ac.jpg
http://spinnigncone.com/macro/IMG_3146-a.jpg
http://spinnigncone.com/macro/IMG_3169-ca.jpg
http://spinnigncone.com/macro/IMG_3173-ca.jpg
http://spinnigncone.com/macro/IMG_3175-ca.jpg
it does work great but you get some falloff also there's the problem of framing. i can *only* shoot 1:1 i cant pull back and shoot any wider without removing the reversed lens leaving a gap between 1:1 and whatever the 18-55 can do.
Edit: i don't know how to make it not say its copyrighted, you can see them at http://spinnigncone.com/macro/
Jul 17, 2009 at 11:05 PM
p.5 #4Don't get caught
The macro photography is awesome here! I can only hope one day to come close... My question is how do you get such close ups? I have a Tamron 90mm, currently a Canon XT. I will be updating to a 50D after Labour Day wkd. Do I need tubes? reverse ring? I just don't seem to get the close-ups and have been quite frustrated. Any help would be splendid. I read the posts, I have also checked out Youtube. Thanks in advance, and keep posting those awesome macros!
Aug 08, 2009 at 11:08 AM
p.5 #5Don't get caught
Bifurcator wrote:
Well, you're right that "color balancing" in ACR and others, does cause information loss. It is a linear operation.
Hmm... I think that changing the white balance in ACR could but does not necessarily have to cause information loss. The critical thing is that it happens at debayering time.
Essentially, the white balance setting is three multipliers to R, G, and B intensities as produced by the Bayer sensor. If you go to extremes, sure, you have information loss. But for not-too-big adjustment there doesn't have to be, methinks...
Kaa
Well, you're right that "color balancing" in ACR and others, does cause information loss. It is a linear operation.
Hmm... I think that changing the white balance in ACR could but does not necessarily have to cause information loss. The critical thing is that it happens at debayering time.
Essentially, the white balance setting is three multipliers to R, G, and B intensities as produced by the Bayer sensor. If you go to extremes, sure, you have information loss. But for not-too-big adjustment there doesn't have to be, methinks...
Kaa
Oct 04, 2009 at 08:03 PM
p.5 #6Don't get caught
Hi Tom,
Yes I'm a newbie, but having fun.
Your last post has four images listed but the first three are not there, only a copyright listing. Is there something that I'm missing this end?
Regards,
Bruce
Yes I'm a newbie, but having fun.
Your last post has four images listed but the first three are not there, only a copyright listing. Is there something that I'm missing this end?
Regards,
Bruce
Oct 14, 2009 at 10:05 AM
p.5 #7Don't get caught
Studio BK wrote:
Ok so I'm trying to understand something. The lower the focal length, the more magnification you get? I want to buy one of those reverse rings. There are tons on ebay for $20. Should I get one for my 50mm f/1.8 or for my 18-55mm kit lens (been sitting in a box for 3 years lol). Thanks for any info, I'm excited to step into the world of macro!!!!!
Just found the two I needed for $3.99 each, shipped on eBay. I bought a 58-52 (for the 50mm 1.8 plastic lens) and a 52-49 (for the old 28mm). Now I need the EF adapter, $5.78, and I'm ready to rock and roll. Those prices are including shipping!
I don't think I'll be reversing the 50mm 1.4 yet, but it's 58mm and so are the old zoom lenses.
Of course if I want to get fancy, I'll have to dive in the dumpster for a plastic chili bowl and some old aluminum foil, because I wouldn't want to spend the 10 cents on buying them?
Not macro, but eventually I'd like to connect my EOS to a telescope using the reversing ring and a 1.25" tube. Not sure if I can do that with the reversed lens, or maybe a bunch of step down rings and some machined parts.
Mating the lens mount to the tube is going to be the difficult part, unless I can find an old back lens cap and make some plastic adapters for the 1.25" tube.
Is there a way to calculate the distance that I will be shooting at, or is it just a matter of looking through the viewfinder and seeing when it's in focus?
Ok so I'm trying to understand something. The lower the focal length, the more magnification you get? I want to buy one of those reverse rings. There are tons on ebay for $20. Should I get one for my 50mm f/1.8 or for my 18-55mm kit lens (been sitting in a box for 3 years lol). Thanks for any info, I'm excited to step into the world of macro!!!!!
Just found the two I needed for $3.99 each, shipped on eBay. I bought a 58-52 (for the 50mm 1.8 plastic lens) and a 52-49 (for the old 28mm). Now I need the EF adapter, $5.78, and I'm ready to rock and roll. Those prices are including shipping!
I don't think I'll be reversing the 50mm 1.4 yet, but it's 58mm and so are the old zoom lenses.
Of course if I want to get fancy, I'll have to dive in the dumpster for a plastic chili bowl and some old aluminum foil, because I wouldn't want to spend the 10 cents on buying them?
Not macro, but eventually I'd like to connect my EOS to a telescope using the reversing ring and a 1.25" tube. Not sure if I can do that with the reversed lens, or maybe a bunch of step down rings and some machined parts.
Mating the lens mount to the tube is going to be the difficult part, unless I can find an old back lens cap and make some plastic adapters for the 1.25" tube.
Is there a way to calculate the distance that I will be shooting at, or is it just a matter of looking through the viewfinder and seeing when it's in focus?
Oct 29, 2009 at 12:02 PM
p.5 #8Don't get caught
Just wanted to thank Mike Scott for the Styrofoam Ring Light. Great idea and I think I can afford the 10 cents
Nov 04, 2009 at 11:14 PM
p.5 #9Don't get caught
Okay guys, I love Macro Photography but I do not have the money to invest in anymore equiptment. I just ordered a reverse ring so I hope its what Im looking for. I have an 750m CANON ae1 , 50mm 1.8, sigma 70-200 2.8, 85mm 1.8 flash difuser etc. 20d body.... Why do we only want to use a 50mm ....something longer to get picture at more distance so we dont scare off subject be better? Tom your thoughts?
Nov 23, 2009 at 10:52 PM
p.5 #10Don't get caught
Okay guys, I love Macro Photography but I do not have the money to invest in anymore equiptment. I just ordered a reverse ring so I hope its what Im looking for. I have an 750m CANON ae1 , 50mm 1.8, sigma 70-200 2.8, 85mm 1.8 flash difuser etc. 20d body.... Why do we only want to use a 50mm ....something longer to get picture at more distance so we dont scare off subject be better? Tom your thoughts?
Nov 23, 2009 at 10:52 PM
p.5 #11Don't get caught
I'm not Tom but a reversal ring is probably NOT what you want. There's usually not enough working distance and DOF is miniscule at best. Try a $30 closeup lens: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/675134/2#6316240
I guess you've already ordered it and probably received it too - so when you get it tell us what it's like with your lens.
I guess you've already ordered it and probably received it too - so when you get it tell us what it's like with your lens.
Dec 02, 2009 at 04:07 PM
p.5 #12Don't get caught
I have ventured into this a bit, but have a long way to go.
Dec 12, 2009 at 06:47 PM
p.5 #13Don't get caught
You don't need a big diffuser, you don't even need one at all. I was using my Canon D60 and on board flash without one with acceptable results. I use my Mark IIn + 430ex flash unit with a cheap sto-fen diffuser, but you could make something like LordV's Coca Cola™ diffuser very cheaply, if not for nothing. No offshoe adaptor needed. No flash bracket needed. It can be done. A focusing rail? Bought one, never use it. I've never used it in the field, it's simply too awkward and slow. Same with a tripod. With a *lot* of practice you can get sharp shots in the field.
Dave
retrofocus wrote:
Yes, but unfortunately that is not enough when using such reversed lens setup! I tried it myself and it is not done just by buying a reversed lens and a MF lens. As you know, for this setup it is necessary to use a flash bracket with a diffused flash and IMO a focusing rail or another tool to get sharp shots. When using a regular speedlite flash for this sort of photography like the 430EX and the other tools mentioned you easily hit the $500 range, not including lenses.
A regular and very feasible macro lens in the 100...Show more →
Dave
retrofocus wrote:
Yes, but unfortunately that is not enough when using such reversed lens setup! I tried it myself and it is not done just by buying a reversed lens and a MF lens. As you know, for this setup it is necessary to use a flash bracket with a diffused flash and IMO a focusing rail or another tool to get sharp shots. When using a regular speedlite flash for this sort of photography like the 430EX and the other tools mentioned you easily hit the $500 range, not including lenses.
A regular and very feasible macro lens in the 100...Show more →
Dec 22, 2009 at 10:36 PM
p.5 #14Don't get caught
Wow. I never knew this was possible. I have a 90 mm Tamron f/2.8, and shoot primarily macro, and never knew about this.
Can the reversing ring be used with a Canon 50 mm EF f/1.4 switched to MF mode, since it has a proper focusing ring?
Can the reversing ring be used with a Canon 50 mm EF f/1.4 switched to MF mode, since it has a proper focusing ring?
Jan 06, 2010 at 01:58 PM
p.5 #15Don't get caught
Mike Scott wrote:
In response to lighting. It doesn't have to be expensive. Here I've used a foam disposable bowl and a piece of aluminum foil along with the pop-up flash. Total cost around $0.10
http://platts-family.smugmug.com/photos/350678363_ARYkD-L.jpg
http://platts-family.smugmug.com/photos/350678385_Eq4VV-L.jpg
Nothing fancy, but it shows that You can get descent lighting with short money. Snapped this between the time I got home and 5 minutes later when the thunder shower started.
CORRECTION: Make that "Yet another !@#$% thunder shower started!"
http://platts-family.smugmug.com/photos/350672684_oQXBD-L.jpg
Mike
Cool idea and I like the price
In response to lighting. It doesn't have to be expensive. Here I've used a foam disposable bowl and a piece of aluminum foil along with the pop-up flash. Total cost around $0.10
http://platts-family.smugmug.com/photos/350678363_ARYkD-L.jpg
http://platts-family.smugmug.com/photos/350678385_Eq4VV-L.jpg
Nothing fancy, but it shows that You can get descent lighting with short money. Snapped this between the time I got home and 5 minutes later when the thunder shower started.
CORRECTION: Make that "Yet another !@#$% thunder shower started!"
http://platts-family.smugmug.com/photos/350672684_oQXBD-L.jpg
Mike
Cool idea and I like the price
Jan 12, 2010 at 05:31 PM
p.5 #17Don't get caught
I just joined this forum and found my way to this macro thread. I must say that you guys are impressive. I have been trying macros with mixed success since I got my D40 back in '07. Actually, I've been learning photography in general since '07..lol. I just tried the "Foil and Bowl" macro ring and I am impressed that it works as good as it does. I've really learned to use my 18-55 kit lens to it's full extent. I wanted to get your critiques on these quick macros that I just took with the homemade macro ring. All of these were taken with the 18-55 and a Quantaray +10 filter. I've got an older non-af Siggy 70-300 "macro", but it's so soft @ 300 that it's unusable...I'm thinking about getting the Nikon 55-200 VR and using my +10 with that to get more working distance. The distance on all of these is less than 4 inches.
Thanks in advance for any tips
Thanks in advance for any tips
Jan 12, 2010 at 11:23 PM
p.5 #18Don't get caught
Here are some with my 50 1.8 and cheap ebay macro tubes:
Jan 21, 2010 at 07:46 PM
p.5 #20Don't get caught
Looks good...I just got the 70-300 VR and am wondering which diopter I should try...I'm thinking about getting one of those cheap "kits" and finding the strength I like and getting a decent version of that one.
Jan 29, 2010 at 07:34 PM