# First try at true macro w/o a macro lens



## AK47J (Sep 25, 2014)

Finally got around to trying some "true" macro shots, but I don't have a macro lens or tubes, so I did it the poor man's way ;-)

These are actual size, no cropping or anything.


----------



## Flyextreme (Sep 26, 2014)

Not bad. So, what is the poor man's way?


----------



## AK47J (Sep 26, 2014)

Flyextreme said:


> Not bad. So, what is the poor man's way?



Stacking two lenses you already own, face to face


----------



## tirediron (Sep 26, 2014)

Looks like it worked well.  Good job.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Sep 26, 2014)

Which two lenses did you stack?


----------



## Derrel (Sep 26, 2014)

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> Which two lenses did you stack?



Mounting the long lens on the camera body, then using a lens reversing ring to mount a SHORT lens on the front gives pretty good magnification. Something like a 200mm lens on the body, then a reversed 24mm lens yield pretty high magnification. Check into alllll the many possibilities of reversed lens shooting, and also using a reversed lens on the front of another lens.

reversed lens macro magnification formula - Google Search

Here is an article discussing the way the OP did it to make his *high-magnification Lincoln Cent* detail shots.

Stacking lenses for extreme macro


----------



## AK47J (Sep 26, 2014)

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> Which two lenses did you stack?



I used a Rokkor 135/2.8 as the primary and a Rokkor 50/1.2 as the secondary, giving me a magnification of about 2.7.
I did try a 28mm as the secondary , but it blacked out the corners, leaving just a circle in the middle.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Sep 26, 2014)

That's cool. Did it distort the image as well or just end up with a round image?


----------



## AK47J (Sep 26, 2014)

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> That's cool. Did it distort the image as well or just end up with a round image?



No distortion really, just a circle "crop". It's the limit of the secondary lens aperture, that is what was cutting off the image


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Sep 26, 2014)

Ahh, makes sense.


----------



## AK47J (Sep 26, 2014)

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> Ahh, makes sense.



I need to correct myself. Actually it is the secondary lens's ability to show the position of the primary lens aperture. So a wide secondary requires a "wide" aperture in the primary, otherwise it cuts off the image. The issue is that a wide aperture in the primary degrades detail.
I tried a few more test shots. A 40mm secondary gave me a magnification of 3.3x
I also re-tried the 28mm, and setting the primary at wide open yielded a full image, but at 4.8x magnification I could not focus the image. The floor that the tripod is resting on moves to much!

Here is Lincoln at 3.3x


----------

