# Tried Reversing my lens today, see results



## NYY (Dec 10, 2005)

I had to do it handheld, so focusing was very difficult, but some turned out really well. I'll add more photos soon. These were done with a 300d and a reversed kit lens. I might try my sigma 70-300mm lens later.






my giant pen


----------



## PlasticSpanner (Dec 13, 2005)

I've found my shorter, wider lenses make the higher magnifications.

(Is this right/normal?)


----------



## ferny (Dec 13, 2005)

They will be better. Also, zooms are terrible for this kind of thing. Nose around eBay and see of you can pick up a cheap prime lens. It shouldn't cost much becasue you just need to make sure the filter is the correct size. 

So, having fun then, NYY? :mrgreen: :thumbsup:


----------



## NYY (Dec 13, 2005)

yeah i noticed the same
im still trying to find out how this actually works

posted at the same time 
yeah its pretty fun, but very akward


----------



## crawdaddio (Dec 13, 2005)

ferny said:
			
		

> They will be better. Also, zooms are terrible for this kind of thing. Nose around eBay and see of you can pick up a cheap prime lens. It shouldn't cost much becasue you just need to make sure the filter is the correct size.
> 
> So, having fun then, NYY? :mrgreen: :thumbsup:



What is a 'prime lens'?

NYY----so you're just holding the lens? I'm gonna have to try this!:mrgreen:

Thanks,
~DC


----------



## PlasticSpanner (Dec 13, 2005)

A prime lens is designed for just one focal legnth e.g 28mm or 50mm as opposed to a zoom lens which has a range of focal legnths e.g 35-70mm


----------



## woodsac (Dec 13, 2005)

NYY, are you mounting the kit lens directly to the camera? Or are you mounting it to another lens? Like a zoom lens attached to camera, and reversed lens on the end?


----------



## NYY (Dec 13, 2005)

all i did was hold the lens in one hand to (in reverse) to the body of the camera. then i moved in on my subject until it came into focus


----------



## hobbes28 (Dec 13, 2005)

Go ahead and get used to that hook in your mouth because it's one that won't go away for a long while.


----------



## PlasticSpanner (Dec 14, 2005)

Is it possible to increase the DOF when reversing a lens or am I stuck with about 10mm?


----------



## hobbes28 (Dec 14, 2005)

You're stuck with the 10mm.  It takes a while to get used to but after you shoot a few, you learn tricks to get around it.


----------



## alexecho (Dec 14, 2005)

I'm confused. You take the lens of and physically hold it in front of the camera? That can't work, can it? Tell me I've mis-read what you're all talking about.


----------



## hobbes28 (Dec 14, 2005)

Nope...you've read correctly.  The lens regularly shrinks what you see to fit it in the frame. (excuse my lack of technical detail. ) When you shoot through it backwards, you get a microscopic effect with an extremely shallow Depth of Focus and you have to get very close to your subject.  When I do these, I usually use an old 50mm lens and hold it backwards to a good zoom lens.


----------



## terri (Dec 14, 2005)

NYY said:
			
		

> all i did was hold the lens in one hand to (in reverse) to the body of the camera. then i moved in on my subject until it came into focus


They look great - I especially like the one of the bill. :thumbup:


----------



## bmovie205 (Dec 15, 2005)

Excellent shot of the $20. Unfortunately, if I keep trying all these techniques I may never see Mr. Jackson in my wallet, again. 

Toby


----------



## jadin (Dec 15, 2005)

alexecho said:
			
		

> I'm confused. You take the lens of and physically hold it in front of the camera? That can't work, can it? Tell me I've mis-read what you're all talking about.


 
Basically you're using two lenses, one that's attached to the camera that actually takes the photos, and one that is attached or held in front of the other lens. You still need the 'normal' lens to close the shutter, the second, held backwards, only changes the magnification.


----------



## PlasticSpanner (Dec 16, 2005)

jadin said:
			
		

> *You still need the 'normal' lens to close the shutter*, the second, held backwards, only changes the magnification.


 
Is that on an all singing camera?

On mine I just use one lens reversed.


----------



## jadin (Dec 16, 2005)

PlasticSpanner said:
			
		

> Is that on an all singing camera?
> 
> On mine I just use one lens reversed.


 
I guess you don't need it, I just assumed the shutter wouldn't trip without a lens attached. Quick testing proves that assumption wrong.

Do you get better magnification with just one lens, or with two, one reversed?


----------



## ferny (Dec 16, 2005)

I made this post a while ago, all the pictures are gone though. 
I've looked on my computer and I can't find them. I'll do some more at some point. 

Anyway... hopefully the text will be able to help you. 
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15916&highlight=


----------



## NYY (Dec 17, 2005)

jadin said:
			
		

> I guess you don't need it, I just assumed the shutter wouldn't trip without a lens attached. Quick testing proves that assumption wrong.


actually you are right because i know that a few people on another forum tried this with nikons (d70 i believe) and the camera refused to trip the shutter without a lens


----------



## jadin (Dec 18, 2005)

Must be a camera-by-camera setting. My D1X will take the photos without a lens attached. The aperture area is blank but I can still adjust the speed, trip the shutter, and have an image show up on my display...


----------



## will turner (Dec 18, 2005)

so i just gave this a go, and it turns out fisheyes are amazing for this


----------



## fuzzybud (Dec 18, 2005)

They do sell adaptors which allow you to mount a lens reversed onto a slr camera. It's known as the poor mans macro lens.


----------



## PlasticSpanner (Dec 18, 2005)

will turner said:
			
		

> so i just gave this a go, and it turns out fisheyes are amazing for this


 
Yeah.  The shorter focal legnth you go the higher the magnification but also the shorter DOF!


----------



## will turner (Dec 19, 2005)

PlasticSpanner said:
			
		

> Yeah.  The shorter focal legnth you go the higher the magnification but also the shorter DOF!



haha yes, as you can see compared to the 50mm


----------



## Don Simon (Dec 28, 2005)

hobbes28 said:
			
		

> You're stuck with the 10mm. It takes a while to get used to but after you shoot a few, you learn tricks to get around it.


 
I'm a little confused; even with a lens reversed shouldn't you be able to change DOF by manually changing aperture? Or are you using lenses without an aperture ring?


----------



## hobbes28 (Dec 29, 2005)

Since you're shooting through the lens the wrong way, you're not really using it the way it was intended.  Typically, the aperture opening is one of the last things light passes through so you can control the amount of light.  Flip it around and it instead blocks the image you're producing.


----------



## Polygon (Dec 29, 2005)

Just for the record:
This will work on a D50, it takes images without a lens attached in manual mode. Can it really be true that it won't work on a D70 then? Can't really believe it.


----------



## Don Simon (Dec 29, 2005)

hobbes28 said:
			
		

> Since you're shooting through the lens the wrong way, you're not really using it the way it was intended. Typically, the aperture opening is one of the last things light passes through so you can control the amount of light. Flip it around and it instead blocks the image you're producing.


 
Ah, so basically with the lens reversed it should always be wide open?


----------



## hobbes28 (Dec 29, 2005)

ZaphodB said:
			
		

> Ah, so basically with the lens reversed it should always be wide open?



From all that I know, yes.  That's the way I've always done it.  You can get around that shallow DOF by shooting more directly at the subject so your focal plane isn't as obvious.  e.g. instead of shooting a quarter at a 45 degree angle, shoot from an 85 degree angle.


----------



## jadin (Dec 29, 2005)

You might be able to change the DoF if you use two lenses (one reversed). Since one lens will be 'normal'. I'll test that if I get around to it.


----------



## pursuer (Dec 29, 2005)

Wow, very cool shots. This is one of those trhings i have always wanted to do but just never got around to. Im going to give a go right now. Thanks for the inspiration.


----------



## Don Simon (Jan 1, 2006)

hobbes28 said:
			
		

> From all that I know, yes. That's the way I've always done it. You can get around that shallow DOF by shooting more directly at the subject so your focal plane isn't as obvious. e.g. instead of shooting a quarter at a 45 degree angle, shoot from an 85 degree angle.


 
... ah.... that is mildly irritating... I've shot about 4 rolls with various lenses reversed, always using different apertures... looks like I'll be getting a lot of blank negs . Confusingly, with the lens reversed the camera's meter was giving pretty much the same readings at all apertures as it was with the lens on normally, and the same as my own lightmeter, so I just assumed it was possible to shoot with the aperture closed down. Bah... oh well, thanks for correcting me there :thumbup:.

Just digressing slightly, does anyone else find themselves relying on older, manual cameras for alternative techniques? Digital's obviously another matter entirely, but with 35mm most modern cameras seem to make it as difficult as possible to experiment. Take IR film for example (a lot of modern cameras won't), and lens reversing - whenever I remove my Minolta 50mm lens from the camera, it fully closes the aperture, and since there's no manual aperture ring I can't open it up again . More automation can be great, but I wish manufacturers would trust people enough to let us do our own thing too..

On a less grumpy note, happy new year everyone!


----------



## PlasticSpanner (Jan 1, 2006)

They don't make 'em like they used to! 

When I were a lad cameras *were* cameras.  None of this electrickery mumbo jumbo..................


----------



## Don Simon (Jan 2, 2006)

Hehe when I were a lad, cameras were nasty-looking lumps of plastic. Not that long ago . Now I'm collecting ones from when me dad were a lad. Cameras needed to be solid back then y'see, so you could take 'em down t'pit (hums Hovis ad theme) :mrgreen: .


----------



## PlasticSpanner (Jan 2, 2006)

ZaphodB said:
			
		

> Cameras needed to be solid back then y'see, so you could take 'em down t'pit (hums Hovis ad theme) :mrgreen: .


 
 :thumbup:


----------



## dmyshkin (Jan 4, 2006)

The D70 will shoot without a lens, 100%. I do it all the time for astrophotography (attached to my telescope) or darkframes. It's important to set the little switch on the front to manual focus instead of AF, otherwise it won't let you trip the shutter.


----------



## stingray (Jan 6, 2006)

http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs9/i/2006/006/b/9/Mad_by_sting_ray.jpg

Panasonic FZ-30 at 420mm equiv. with my Canon bottom of the range 35-80 on the end (backwards). I'm quite happy with it


----------



## orangetree (Jan 6, 2006)

Im new to this forum and ive already learned something, i dont know how much i will use it in my work but its damn nifty.... here is a plastic airsoft pellet sitting in a quarter

ok it wont let me post attachments but its still cool


----------



## PlasticSpanner (Jan 6, 2006)

Orangetree, get yourself a free account at imageshack.us or photobucket.com, upload your pics to their servers and hotlink them to here!

Would love to see your pellet macro shot! :thumbup:


----------



## ShaCow (Jan 7, 2006)

or you an go to www.the000.com and get them uploaded


----------



## ThatCameraThingy (Jan 7, 2006)

Hi guys , and gals

just my 2cents worth.

I have recently stripped a broken tamron lens and kept it's lens mount. I then superglued it onto a cokin adaptor ring.

This now allows me to reverse mount a 50mm minolta manual lens on my EOS 10D.  I can control DOF by changing the aperture on the minolta lens. Have to shoot in metered manual mode though.

this pic was taken with rig as described.

PM me if you want to see pics of the rig.

Hanno


----------



## Don Simon (Jan 7, 2006)

Now that is impressive! Reminds me why I need a DSLR (have been attempting reversed-lens stuff with new digital P&S but since I can't reverse-mount old primes onto the fixed lens this requires tripods, vices and much steadier hands than I have). Would be interested to see more of what you can do with that setup. :thumbup:


----------

