Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2006
Lens Reversing Ring ??
|
|
Thread rating:  |
DB - 08 Sep 2006 17:41 GMT Does anyone have any advice on these.....
There's someone on Ebay selling these for just over £10.
£10 for a lens reversing kit to enable you to do macro photography.....
Thanks again...
Dave :)
DoN. Nichols - 08 Sep 2006 18:03 GMT According to DB <db002a3121@blueyonder.co.uk>:
> Does anyone have any advice on these..... > > There's someone on Ebay selling these for just over £10. > > £10 for a lens reversing kit to enable you to do macro photography..... Alone, they will give you a single reproduction ratio for a given fixed focal-length lens.
They probably won't work well with most zoom lenses reversed, Although I have not tried that.
To get a *range* of magnifications, you will need to add either extension tubes or a bellows.
Your metering will most likely not work with a reversed lens, nor will auto aperture -- it will stop down to whatever the aperture ring is set to. (And if it is one of the new lenses for the Nikon digitals, you won't even *have* an aperture ring, so it will stop all the way down.
What the reversing of the lens does for you (mostly) is to allow you to use the lens in the direction for which it is designed when you want the image to be larger than the original object.
Aside from that, it typically does give you quite a bit larger image with no other accessories than you could get without it or extension tubes.
You don't mention which camera it is for, so I can't offer any more details. I have the Nikon reversing ring (for 52mm filter thread lenses), but I did a lot more of this back in my early film days with a Miranda F and a bellows and extension tubes -- though I got a few interesting high-magnification shots with just the 50mm f1.8 on the reversing ring alone. Luckily, the metering of that camera did not depend on electrical connections to a CPU in the lens -- unlike with my current Nikon D70.
These days, I use an old Medical Nikkor, with close-up lenses designed for it, and a built-in ring flash for even illumination. This works well with the D70.
I hope that this is some help, DoN.
 Signature Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
DB - 08 Sep 2006 18:38 GMT Sorry ..meant to say...Nikon D50
> According to DB <db002a3121@blueyonder.co.uk>: >> Does anyone have any advice on these..... [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > I hope that this is some help, > DoN. Paul Furman - 08 Sep 2006 18:42 GMT > Does anyone have any advice on these..... > > There's someone on Ebay selling these for just over £10. > > £10 for a lens reversing kit to enable you to do macro photography..... Is that just a male-male threaded fitting for attaching the lens backward on the front of another lens or something that fits in the camera's bayonete mount with threads for the front of the lens?
I've done the first with just step rings & tape, at least you can test to see if that's suitable for your needs. I needed to either tape the front lens aperture open part way or reach my finger around & twiddle it manually, It'll spring to the smallest opening (too dark to see) when hanging backward like that.
In the second case, I'm not sure that lenses are optimised properly to work backwards, maybe someone can confirm. It's possible that's better quality than extension rings. You should be able to get varying magnifications with distance & focus and zoom if it's a zoom. Just hold it in front 1/4 inch or so away & look through the viewfinder to get some idea what focal range and magnification (pulling pack the aperture lever to open it up with your finger).
 Signature Paul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com
David Littlewood - 13 Sep 2006 10:48 GMT >In the second case, I'm not sure that lenses are optimised properly to >work backwards, maybe someone can confirm. It's possible that's better [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >idea what focal range and magnification (pulling pack the aperture >lever to open it up with your finger). AIUI, most lenses are designed to give optimum performance for a subject at about 20x focal length. This gives a reproduction ratio of about 1:20. Any deviation from this will give poorer performance; for most real-life non-macro uses the difference will be small or invisible, but for macrophotography (1:1 or higher) it will often start to be obtrusive. In these circumstances the lens will be working closer to its optimum design point if it is reversed (it is a matter of indifference to the lens which way the light is going).
However, note that there is no benefit in doing so if working at less than 1:1 magnification.
David
 Signature David Littlewood
Mantid - 08 Sep 2006 18:42 GMT Hi Dave,
Have a look at the following website, see under macro photography. There is an article on reversing rings and how to make your own. http://www.insecta.co.za Regards, Lambert.
Paul Furman - 08 Sep 2006 19:04 GMT > Hi Dave, > > Have a look at the following website, see under macro photography. > There is an article on reversing rings and how to make your own. > http://www.insecta.co.za I just tried my 45mm lense reversed on a 105mm 1:1 macro and it came out to 4:1, better than a 2x teleconverter plus a +2 diopter closeup lens at about 3:1 but with that setup I've got metering & aperture control. I thin the closeup lens doesn't add much at this point, mostly degrades image quality.
Here's some tests with the 100mm 2x + +2 setup: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/2006-09-03-macro>
 Signature Paul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com
Rita Ä Berkowitz - 08 Sep 2006 22:28 GMT > I just tried my 45mm lense reversed on a 105mm 1:1 macro and it came > out to 4:1, better than a 2x teleconverter plus a +2 diopter closeup > lens at about 3:1 but with that setup I've got metering & aperture > control. I thin the closeup lens doesn't add much at this point, > mostly degrades image quality. Which 45mm lens are you using? I've tried all Canon FD lenses from 35mm down to 20mm in front of my 105 an the optical quality of the final image totally sucked. I'll have to get a 77mm reversing ring so I can try my 85mm f/1.4 in front of it. So far, the 50mm f/1.4 is the king.
Rita
Paul Furman - 08 Sep 2006 23:15 GMT >> I just tried my 45mm lense reversed on a 105mm 1:1 macro and it came >> out to 4:1, better than a 2x teleconverter plus a +2 diopter closeup [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 85mm > f/1.4 in front of it. So far, the 50mm f/1.4 is the king. 45mm f/2.8 P and yeah, now that I've tried actual photos, it pretty much sucks.
Rita Ä Berkowitz - 09 Sep 2006 00:31 GMT > 45mm f/2.8 P and yeah, now that I've tried actual photos, > it pretty much sucks. My theory was WA lenses would give greater usable magnification, I was wrong.
Rita
Paul Furman - 09 Sep 2006 18:26 GMT >>> I just tried my 45mm lense reversed on a 105mm 1:1 macro and it came >>> out to 4:1, better than a 2x teleconverter plus a +2 diopter closeup [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 45mm f/2.8 P and yeah, now that I've tried actual photos, > it pretty much sucks. In fact I compared side by side with the tests of the teleconverter plus diopter thing (which still has bad bokeh & reflection/flare problems) and those are much sharper than the reversed 45 on front of the 105 even scaled down to the same magnification (4:1 vs 3:1) it has much less detail. Perhaps I should be stopping down the 45mm half way, I forget, I think that's the recommended method and I had it taped wide open, stopping down the 105 to f/16.
 Signature Paul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com
Rita Ä Berkowitz - 09 Sep 2006 22:06 GMT > In fact I compared side by side with the tests of the teleconverter > plus diopter thing (which still has bad bokeh & reflection/flare [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > way, I forget, I think that's the recommended method and I had it > taped wide open, stopping down the 105 to f/16. Whatever lens you put in front of the 105 has to be full open or you'll vignette. Don't be afraid to take the 105 to f/32.
Rita
Rita Ä Berkowitz - 08 Sep 2006 22:27 GMT > Does anyone have any advice on these..... > > There's someone on Ebay selling these for just over £10. > > £10 for a lens reversing kit to enable you to do macro > photography..... These work extremely well and I'm getting 2.85:1 magnification with a 50mm f/1.4 AI reverse mounted in front of a Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 AF-D. Here is what it looks like.
http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/pics/50_105mm.jpg
Rita
Buy_Sell - 09 Sep 2006 16:41 GMT Rita, I've always enjoyed reading your posts. I have a great respect for your contributions to this forum and you've answered many of my questions without me having to ask them.
However, I am a bit confused by the lens configuration that you have created below. Wouldn't the Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 AF-D do the job on it's own? I would have thought that the 50mm front mounted, would negate a portion of the 105mm reverse mounted.
----------------------------------
> These work extremely well and I'm getting 2.85:1 magnification with a 50mm > f/1.4 AI reverse mounted in front of a Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 AF-D. Here [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Rita Paul Furman - 09 Sep 2006 17:07 GMT >>These work extremely well and I'm getting 2.85:1 magnification with a >>50mm f/1.4 AI reverse mounted in front of a Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 >>AF-D. Here is what it looks like. >>http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/pics/50_105mm.jpg
> Rita, I've always enjoyed reading your posts. I have a great respect > for your contributions to this forum and you've answered many of my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > on it's own? I would have thought that the 50mm front mounted, would > negate a portion of the 105mm reverse mounted. The 105 macro gets to 1:1, add the 50 reversed and you have about 4:1. Probably the best quality would be using extension tubes but then you lose metering. Actually I think the metering is not right with this setup either.
 Signature Paul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com
Buy_Sell - 09 Sep 2006 17:40 GMT I was looking at things in reverse. From the photo, I thought that you were front mounting the 50mm and reverse mounting the 105mm micro because you were holding it from that end and there was no cover on that end. Things are becoming clearer, now.
------------------------------
> > Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Bay Natives > http://www.baynatives.com Rita Ä Berkowitz - 09 Sep 2006 22:07 GMT > I was looking at things in reverse. From the photo, I thought that > you were front mounting the 50mm and reverse mounting the 105mm micro > because you were holding it from that end and there was no cover on > that end. Things are becoming clearer, now. The 105 is connected to the camera and the 50 is exposed. This picture was taken prior to me making a protective cover out of a small filter and rear lens cap.
Rita
Rita Ä Berkowitz - 09 Sep 2006 22:06 GMT >> However, I am a bit confused by the lens configuration that you have >> created below. Wouldn't the Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 AF-D do the job [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lose metering. Actually I think the metering is not right with this > setup either. I'm getting 2.85:1 with the 50 in front. The metering works fine with this setup since it's the 105 that is attached to the camera. I do all my macro handheld and this is hell enough to use without proper bracing and breathing techniques. Bellows in the field would be downright miserable. I have a set of Kenko tubes and I prefer this setup to them.
Rita
Buy_Sell - 09 Sep 2006 22:28 GMT Rita, could you provide a few sample photos from the lens setup that you have? I would be curious to see what this lens arrangement can produce as I am considering to purchase the 105mm f/2.8
---------------------------------
> I'm getting 2.85:1 with the 50 in front. The metering works fine with this > setup since it's the 105 that is attached to the camera. I do all my macro [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Rita Rita Ä Berkowitz - 10 Sep 2006 00:39 GMT > Rita, could you provide a few sample photos from the lens setup that > you have? > I would be curious to see what this lens arrangement can produce as I > am considering to purchase the 105mm f/2.8 http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/amputated.htm
Rita
bob crownfield - 10 Sep 2006 02:52 GMT >> Rita, could you provide a few sample photos from the lens setup that >> you have? >> I would be curious to see what this lens arrangement can produce as I >> am considering to purchase the 105mm f/2.8 > > http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/amputated.htm nice!
> Rita Buy_Sell - 12 Sep 2006 04:06 GMT Thanks, for sharing the photo, Rita. Very well done. I'll start looking around in my neighborhood for a similar setup.
---------------------------------
> > Rita, could you provide a few sample photos from the lens setup that > > you have? > > I would be curious to see what this lens arrangement can produce as I > > am considering to purchase the 105mm f/2.8 > > http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/amputated.htm
> Rita ink - 11 Sep 2006 09:26 GMT > >>These work extremely well and I'm getting 2.85:1 magnification with a > >>50mm f/1.4 AI reverse mounted in front of a Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > metering. Actually I think the metering is not right with this setup > either. I'm a bit confused here - I got the 105 and the Kenko extension tubes set, put it on a D200 and I think it meters just fine (I've only shot a couple of frames so far, testing it out a little). Or do Nikon extension tubes behave differently from the Kenkos?
Cheers, ink
DB - 10 Sep 2006 18:52 GMT To me..an excellent pic - Thanks You.....
I'm ordering one of these.
Dave :)
>> Does anyone have any advice on these..... >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Rita
|
|
|