# Because I'm Cheap, and I don't wanna buy a microscope!



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

So I was wondering. Could I attach a 50mm enlarging lens to my bellows, and an reversal ring to the lens, and another bellows to the reversal ring, and a microscope objective to the bellows, using the 50mm lens to enlarge the image projected from the objective enough to fill or partially fill the frame?

Would it be so dark as to be impossible to focus?


----------



## Overread (Jun 6, 2012)

I think two sets of bellows and lenses is going to result in a monster that will not only suck out way too much light, but will also be very difficult to actually use (really long setups gain more and more weak points that have to be supported - plus they mean you can't just mount it all to a tripod - you have to use 2 tripods). 

If you really want to go high mag without regular methods head over to www.photomacrography.net :: Index the community there is macro nuts and has way more specialist resources on hand to give you a much better guide to high magnification work. I suspect you'll end up with a cone adaptor (that is like an extension tube, but also has a cone design so the end tapers to fit microscope elements) and a microscope element to get the high mag results for an affordable price.


----------



## snowbear (Jun 6, 2012)

Probably get a DOF measured in microns, it it worked at all.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

^^ well. what would you expect from 25x or more?

Overead - I've seen these cones - but will an objective alone have enough coverage to fill more than a tiny dot on the frame?


----------



## macrolands (Jun 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> So I was wondering. Could I attach a 50mm enlarging lens to my bellows, and an reversal ring to the lens, and another bellows to the reversal ring, and a microscope objective to the bellows, using the 50mm lens to enlarge the image projected from the objective enough to fill or partially fill the frame?
> 
> Would it be so dark as to be impossible to focus?



I think you will need enough lights for make a better result, and it will hard for you to shot a microscope subjects without good lighting tricks.  I've seen my friend use extension tube and 70mm lens with twin lite flash (made by his own), he make a bracket that can put two speedlite with diffuser in front of the lens,  and i think the results not bad.  For better you should to use macro super zoom filter such as raynox 5320 , but the price is slightly expensive


----------



## unpopular (Jun 6, 2012)

This would likely be done in studio using one or more 300ws monos at fairly close proximity to the subject, either in reflective or transmissive positioning. I've shot plenty with very long extension - long as in over 130mm from the flange at f-ratios greater than f/8. Screen brightness is usually much more a problem than exposure. However, if the circle from the objective fills up 1/4 the frame, I'd only need 4:1 magnification, and I wouldn't need to stop down since the circle exists only in two dimensions. This isn't that dim with a 50mm enlarging lens, though I have no idea how dim the circle would be.

I'd never touch a macro filter, mostly out of stubbornness.


----------



## Edsport (Jun 7, 2012)

I'm not sure if what you're asking will work but i've used my 18-55mm lens reversed on my 350D and it's like a microscope. Grains of salt is like the size of ice cubes. Use the zoom to make things smaller or bigger. Maybe it will give you something to try...


----------



## Overread (Jun 7, 2012)

unpopular said:


> ^^ well. what would you expect from 25x or more?
> 
> Overead - I've seen these cones - but will an objective alone have enough coverage to fill more than a tiny dot on the frame?



Well the front element of the MPE 65mm is only around 1cm or so in width so for pure macro work I don't think a large front element is actually needed to cover the frame - most likely because the idea of the macro lens is to enlarge the details present onto the sensor itself (wereas most other lenses are working the other way and reducing the size of the area of light).


----------



## unpopular (Jun 7, 2012)

Well, no. The front element doesn't need to be large at all. That isn't what I meant. What I'm wondering is if the image circle will be large enough at a reasonable amount of extension - aren't most objectives fairly telecentric, even if not truly telecentric?

My idea was to magnify that image circle (the "virtual image", iirc) and project it onto the sensor - the way an eyepeice projects the image onto the retna.


----------



## Overread (Jun 7, 2012)

well its beyond my understanding (I've known you can use them but I've never used a microscope element before). Have you checked out the site I linked to? I've not joined in there myself but I know its well respected by teh macro community and I think they've some stickies on the use of microscope elements as well as different element type details.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 7, 2012)

I will soon. Thanks for the link.


----------

