# Using reversed lens



## Nod (Jul 3, 2011)

I tried my first attempt at macro using my minolta 50mm reversed on my Sigma 70-300. I'm not sure I like it because you have to use such a shallow dof to get a shot. Impossible to shoot a skittish insect. This is a (dead) hornets wing. I used my 70-300 because the gears are stripped and I can only use it in manual anyway. There's something rattleing around inside the lens too.

Here's the lens


----------



## Edsport (Jul 3, 2011)

You can use just one lens reversed...


----------



## Nod (Jul 4, 2011)

Yes that's true, but you don't get the same magnification.  By using the 50 on the end of the 70-300 you get around 6:1.  Without it, you get at best 1:1.


----------



## Overread (Jul 4, 2011)

Welcome to the world of razor depth of field! Chances are you also can't stop down more than one stop on the lens either to get more depth since at this magnification diffraction sets in very early (and the effective aperture you're working at is likely already far smaller than f22).

You can do live bugs with it - but it tends to favour a certain size of bug. Turn over a few rocks or wood in some moist areas and see if you can find any springtails (tiny 1-2mm long bugs) 6:1 is more than enough to get good shots of them.


----------



## Nod (Jul 4, 2011)

I've drilled out the center of a rear lens cap on the 50mm and by doing that you can control the aperture by turning the cap. With the cap on all the way, it opens the lens wide open. I think I can find the link to the process if you're interested.


----------



## Edsport (Jul 4, 2011)

I get more than 1:1 using my 18-55mm lens. Use your zoom. Here's a couple examples of an ordinary housefly...


----------



## Nod (Jul 4, 2011)

You're right, I've done that with my other lens.  Those are very nice by the way, thanks.


----------



## Destin (Jul 4, 2011)

How are you guys attaching the reversed lens to the camera. Do they make an adapter?


----------



## NikonME (Jul 4, 2011)

Yup, check ebay for 'reverse macro adapter ring'. You want one that will fit your camera and the lens (your lens filter size)


----------



## molested_cow (Jul 4, 2011)

I tried it with my 20mm prime. The depth of field is so narrow that even just my hand shake can't keep things in range. I had to rig something up to keep it still, so there's no way I can take a decent shot with it outside. The magnification is pretty awesome though, but sharpness suffers.


----------



## NikonME (Jul 4, 2011)

molested_cow said:


> I tried it with my 20mm prime. The depth of field is so narrow that even just my hand shake can't keep things in range. I had to rig something up to keep it still, so there's no way I can take a decent shot with it outside. The magnification is pretty awesome though, but sharpness suffers.



Did you try something like the gorillapod?


----------



## Arkanjel Imaging (Jul 4, 2011)

Trying to shoot handheld at 6:1 is futile.  At those mags you need a *good* tripod, a lot of light, cable(less) shutter release and mirror lock-up to get anything good.


----------



## Edsport (Jul 4, 2011)

molested_cow said:


> I tried it with my 20mm prime. The depth of field is so narrow that even just my hand shake can't keep things in range. I had to rig something up to keep it still, so there's no way I can take a decent shot with it outside. The magnification is pretty awesome though, but sharpness suffers.


With my canon 18-55mm on my camera the normal way i set the aperture, hold in the DOF button and remove the lens while holding in the button. Now when i reverse the lens it has the aperture set. If you don't do this then you will have a very narrow depth of field...


----------



## molested_cow (Jul 4, 2011)

The 20mm prime is a manual lens, so no issue with setting the aperture, but still gives very narrow depth of field. Basically, I was shooting a piece of paper straight on, and just the little unevenness of the paper was enough to get it to be way out of focus.

I was using a tripod. The problem isn't about using tripod or not, it's being able to set it up at where you need it outside. The margin is so small, it's much easier to bring the subject to the focus zone than to move the camera/tripod. You cannot do that with bugs.


----------



## Arkanjel Imaging (Jul 4, 2011)

Tripods are a tool for removing any minute vibrations that might cause blur.  They dont increase dof.  The only way to get really deep dof at high magnifications is stacking.  Unless you have a scanning electron microscope, of course.


----------



## Adamneedsadvice (Jul 4, 2011)

So let me get this straight, (mind you I'm newb to photography in general)  I can take my 75-300mm zoom lens, combine that with my 50mm kit lens reverse and get high magnification macro??

If so, then the difference with that vs. the 100mm 2.8 macro lens I just bought is sharpness and bokeh??


----------



## molested_cow (Jul 4, 2011)

Your macro lens has much better control in terms of DOF, with wider workable range. Image is much sharper too. The reverse lens photos I have tried all look like they are from some cheap point and shoot.

Now it may be a different story if you use your macro lens + a reversed 50mm. I've never tried that before but I've seen that kind of set up.


----------



## Overread (Jul 5, 2011)

Depth of field won't be any different with a regular macro lens over reversed macro lens setups. The difference is that a regular macro lens gets a magnification of 1:1 without any additions and also retains the ability to focus from infinity to 1:1. There are many larger insects and subjects which don't warrant 1:1 and benefit from a little less magnification. 

 With the reversed lens setups the  magnifications possible are far greater, but you've no infinity focusing and the range is often very limited. In addition some lens corrections are better with a dedicated macro lens over a reversed lens setup(eg sharpness, chromatic aberrations, flare etc...). 

The only reason you get less depth of field with the reversed lens setups is because of their greater magnifications, which is inherant of pretty much any magnification gain method. In addition if you lose aperture controls and can't stop the lens down you've again lost some control and thus you're stuck shooting wide open, which of course does mean you have a thin depth of field to work with. 


As for softness, even lenses like the MPE 65mm macro do soften as the magnification gains because most setups end up with the effective aperture reducing - by 5:1 you can be well into f64 or smaller even without changing the aperture blades on the lens itself
MPE 65mm test shot series - a set on Flickr
That set there would give you some idea how things change (with the MPE) as the magnification gains = it also shows the diffraction effect having more and more effect.


----------



## Edsport (Jul 5, 2011)

I don't see the need for using 2 lenses. With just one of my lenses reversed i get lots of maginification if i zoom. It's like using a mircroscope. I have to zoom out so it's not magnified so much...


----------



## Arkanjel Imaging (Jul 5, 2011)

Shooting at 1:1 is challanging in itself.  Difficulty increases proportionally to magnification.  You have to keep your expectations realistic.


----------



## NateS (Jul 5, 2011)

Arkanjel Imaging said:


> Trying to shoot handheld at 6:1 is futile.  At those mags you need a *good* tripod, a lot of light, cable(less) shutter release and mirror lock-up to get anything good.



I strongly disagree with this.  I am shooting in probably the 5:1 range with my bellows and reversed 50 and I don't use a tripod (good or not), nor do I have a cableless shutter release or mirror lockup.  All I have is good light (SB-600) and something good to support against.  I can get good shots in this range by bracing against a tree or other structure, or by kneeling down on the ground (when possible).  I don't think I'm at quite 6:1 but I think I could do it at 6:1 as easily as I am doing it at 4:1 - 5:1.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 5, 2011)

One of the biggest problems is lack of light to see and focus with, especially when using a "slow" zoom lens like an f/4~5.6 or an f/4.5~5.6 variable maximum aperture zoom lens plus a reversed lens on that...a strong flashlight aimed right at the subject area can really help you to literally SEE what you're trying to focus on, and then a much brighter burst of electronic flash is used to make the exposure. The flash is brighter than the flashlight, and so, overrides the continuous light.

I thought the formula for magnification was to take the foal length of the longer lens(the one mounted on the body), and then to divide the focal length of the shorter, reversed lens, into the longer lens's focal length, to get an approximate magnification factor. As in, say 70-300mm zoom lens shot at 300mm, divided by 50mm, equals 6, ie six times, or 6:1, ie six times greater than life-size.


----------



## NateS (Jul 5, 2011)

Derrel said:


> One of the biggest problems is lack of light to see and focus with, especially when using a "slow" zoom lens like an f/4~5.6 or an f/4.5~5.6 variable maximum aperture zoom lens plus a reversed lens on that...a strong flashlight aimed right at the subject area can really help you to literally SEE what you're trying to focus on, and then a much brighter burst of electronic flash is used to make the exposure. The flash is brighter than the flashlight, and so, overrides the continuous light.
> 
> I thought the formula for magnification was to take the foal length of the longer lens(the one mounted on the body), and then to divide the focal length of the shorter, reversed lens, into the longer lens's focal length, to get an approximate magnification factor. As in, say 70-300mm zoom lens shot at 300mm, divided by 50mm, equals 6, ie six times, or 6:1, ie six times greater than life-size.



I have heard of that calculation before, but there is something that always confused me with that.  Wouldn't the max magnification of the longer lens play a factor?  Lets say you take a Sigma 70-300 APO with a max magnification of 1:2 and reverse a 50 on it.  Wouldn't that get more magnification than taking a 70-300 that has a max magnification of 1:4 or 1:5 (without the 50) and adding a reversed 50?

Light to focus with is something I'm struggling with on my bellows setup.  I have virtually no visible light in the viewfinder at full extension even on a bright day (my diffuser blocks too much light).  I'm thinking of rigging up some type of led lighting that I can flip on to help....for now, using Live View seems to help "find" the subject.  For some reason, Live View gives me a much brighter view in these conditions than the viewfinder.  I use LV to find the object, then click it off and use the viewfinder to focus (while faintly being able to see my subject).  It's tough but it works decently.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 5, 2011)

Live View can apply "gain", so yeah, it **is** brighter than the image seen by your eye through the viewfinder.

As far as the difference in magnification of the longer lens, I think that the most critical part of the equation with the long lens is its actual focal length, rather than the magnification is can reach at its minimum focusing distance. The magnification the 300mm lens is capable of is a combination of the focal length, and the minimum focusing distance; with the addition of a reversed lens on the front, the normal MFD of the long lens is effectively rendered MUCH, much shorter, so that virtually any telephoto lens will be WELL,WELL inside of its normal MFD of from 1.5 meters to 2.5 meters. Thus making most any 70-300, or 200, or 300mm lens into a lens that focuses super-close. I dunno...I've used the Nikkor 200mm f/4 Ai + 24mm Ai-S reversed...that's a pretty easy combo to put together. Fairly affordable, and the 200/4 Ai is built like a BRICK house!!!


----------



## NateS (Jul 5, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Live View can apply "gain", so yeah, it **is** brighter than the image seen by your eye through the viewfinder.
> 
> As far as the difference in magnification of the longer lens, I think that the most critical part of the equation with the long lens is its actual focal length, rather than the magnification is can reach at its minimum focusing distance. The magnification the 300mm lens is capable of is a combination of the focal length, and the minimum focusing distance; with the addition of a reversed lens on the front, the normal MFD of the long lens is effectively rendered MUCH, much shorter, so that virtually any telephoto lens will be WELL,WELL inside of its normal MFD of from 1.5 meters to 2.5 meters. Thus making most any 70-300, or 200, or 300mm lens into a lens that focuses super-close. I dunno...I've used the Nikkor 200mm f/4 Ai + 24mm Ai-S reversed...that's a pretty easy combo to put together. Fairly affordable, and the 200/4 Ai is built like a BRICK house!!!



Interesting thoughts.  I have thought about reversing my 50mm f1.8 onto my Tamron 180mm macro, but have had a very hard time finding a 72mm - 52mm adapter (I guess I could have used multiple adapters, but I got tired of searching).

On the other hand, I just placed an ebay bid on an el-Nikkor 50mm f2.8 enlarger lens to reverse mount on my bellows.  It should be good for 7x-8x (assuming I win the auction).


----------



## Nod (Jul 5, 2011)

NateS----B&H has a 52 to 72 step up ring for $6.95 or the 72-52 if that's what your looking for.

If anybody wants, I can try to post some shots of how I drilled out the rear cap for the 50mm, & added a filter ring so I could put a cap on.


----------



## Edsport (Jul 5, 2011)

NateS said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Live View can apply "gain", so yeah, it **is** brighter than the image seen by your eye through the viewfinder.
> ...


 52-72 adapter. 3 bucks with free shipping. Most times when i use ebay, i don't bid, i look for a buy it now. reversing lens adapter 52 72 | eBay


----------

