Reversing ring
- Thread starter Molly47
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,756
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You lose all auto control over the lens and have to work with it wide open, using manual exposure but, yes, it's an excellent low budget intro to Macro. The shorter the focal length the better. Standard 18-55 kit lenses make great reverse macros.
This was taken using a rubbishy Canon cheapo lens with reversing ring that cost less than £10....
May fly by Chris Gilbert
It takes practice and if you enjoy it you'll eventually want the real McCoy
This was taken using a rubbishy Canon cheapo lens with reversing ring that cost less than £10....
May fly by Chris Gilbert
It takes practice and if you enjoy it you'll eventually want the real McCoy
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,864
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I posted this a little while ago, as a bit of information for those people who are wondering about the different magnifications available using 1 lens in different ways.
I did this little test ages ago for a mate of mine to show him the differences.
They were taken on a Nikon D70, using a Nikon 105mm f2.8 micro lens.
It also shows how the depth of field changes too.
Here is the first image, which is just to show the size of the subject (A cactus of some sort),as you can see the width of the pointy bit is 5mm.
Reference_105 by scubacrazy, on Flickr
This is a shot using just the 105mm at closest focus, the working distance is around 10" (250mm):
105mm_closest by scubacrazy, on Flickr
Next a shot using the 105mm but with a Canon 500D "close up lens" (2X Dioptre) attached.
This is effectively a filter which screws in to the filter thread on the front of the lens, it gives a similar magnification to using a 25mm extension tube, but of course doesn't effect light transmission.
Working distance now is 3" (75mm):
105mm_with-500D by scubacrazy, on Flickr
Finally, a shot using the 105mm with a reversed (old) nikon 50mm f1.8 attached to the front. This is done by using a reversing ring screwed into the filter thread of the 105 lens, and the 50mm screwed into that using it's filter thread. I leave the 50mm wide open, and focussed to infinity.
Working distance now is a mere 1.5" (35mm):
105mm_with-rev_50 by scubacrazy, on Flickr
Not very exciting piccies I know, but thought it might be of interested .
Hope this helps !
Cheers,
Gary.
I did this little test ages ago for a mate of mine to show him the differences.
They were taken on a Nikon D70, using a Nikon 105mm f2.8 micro lens.
It also shows how the depth of field changes too.
Here is the first image, which is just to show the size of the subject (A cactus of some sort),as you can see the width of the pointy bit is 5mm.
Reference_105 by scubacrazy, on Flickr
This is a shot using just the 105mm at closest focus, the working distance is around 10" (250mm):
105mm_closest by scubacrazy, on Flickr
Next a shot using the 105mm but with a Canon 500D "close up lens" (2X Dioptre) attached.
This is effectively a filter which screws in to the filter thread on the front of the lens, it gives a similar magnification to using a 25mm extension tube, but of course doesn't effect light transmission.
Working distance now is 3" (75mm):
105mm_with-500D by scubacrazy, on Flickr
Finally, a shot using the 105mm with a reversed (old) nikon 50mm f1.8 attached to the front. This is done by using a reversing ring screwed into the filter thread of the 105 lens, and the 50mm screwed into that using it's filter thread. I leave the 50mm wide open, and focussed to infinity.
Working distance now is a mere 1.5" (35mm):
105mm_with-rev_50 by scubacrazy, on Flickr
Not very exciting piccies I know, but thought it might be of interested .
Hope this helps !
Cheers,
Gary.
It doesn't have to be used wide open. You can set the aperture normally, hold the depth of field preview button and disconnect the lens, then turn it around. This works, but allows very little light to focus with when at f.11+.
It is possible to get sharp photos but will take some practice as the depth of field is tiny. Also have a search on extension tubes. Tubes move the lens away from the camera reducing the minimum focusing distance so you can get much closer for more magnification.
I have posted these before, but this was shot was taken @20mm with a reversing ring, only a slight crop to rotate:
Woodlouse in Bathroom. Macro. by Andy_S_C, on Flickr
And normal table salt out the shaker:
Salt Crystal Macro by Andy_S_C, on Flickr
And with tubes, reversing ring, and basic kit lens. Not the best, just did it to see how big I could get. 1p coin:
1p Coin. Test by Andy_S_C, on Flickr
It is possible to get sharp photos but will take some practice as the depth of field is tiny. Also have a search on extension tubes. Tubes move the lens away from the camera reducing the minimum focusing distance so you can get much closer for more magnification.
I have posted these before, but this was shot was taken @20mm with a reversing ring, only a slight crop to rotate:
Woodlouse in Bathroom. Macro. by Andy_S_C, on Flickr
And normal table salt out the shaker:
Salt Crystal Macro by Andy_S_C, on Flickr
And with tubes, reversing ring, and basic kit lens. Not the best, just did it to see how big I could get. 1p coin:
1p Coin. Test by Andy_S_C, on Flickr
- Messages
- 1,756
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Oooh, neat trick. Thanks for that Andy. I shall see how far the rubbishy lens can be pushed.
- Messages
- 1,864
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The advantage of reverse mounting a lens on the front of the camera lens (Whichever lens you have) is that you have control over aperture etc on the main lens, from the camera in the normal way.
As for focussing, the easiest way is to manual focus, and move the camera back and forth to acheive focus.
As for focussing, the easiest way is to manual focus, and move the camera back and forth to acheive focus.
Thankyou so much for the advice, I am amazed at the clarity of the pics. I would never have thought you could achieve this with just reversing the lens.
I used to have a Raynox 250 but found it a real struggle to achieve anything of quality, maybe I wasnt as patient as some though.
I will get a reversing ring asap & give it a whirl.
Thanks again
I used to have a Raynox 250 but found it a real struggle to achieve anything of quality, maybe I wasnt as patient as some though.
I will get a reversing ring asap & give it a whirl.
Thanks again
- Messages
- 443
- Name
- Asa
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Reversing rings are something magical as far as I am concerned.
I got one for my 35mm Canon AE-1P and then had my own little project so that I could trick the lens into giving me manual control (I did this by cutting a hole in a rear lens cap so the lens thought it was in the camera and then getting a little bit of plastic to hold the aperture lever in place) obviously this was an analogue lens but you can get manual control as siad above if you disconnect the lens while using a DOF checker.
Unfortunately, the roll of film with all my macro shots on it is still in my camera so no sample pictures but just getting the thing to work was fun enough!
I got one for my 35mm Canon AE-1P and then had my own little project so that I could trick the lens into giving me manual control (I did this by cutting a hole in a rear lens cap so the lens thought it was in the camera and then getting a little bit of plastic to hold the aperture lever in place) obviously this was an analogue lens but you can get manual control as siad above if you disconnect the lens while using a DOF checker.
Unfortunately, the roll of film with all my macro shots on it is still in my camera so no sample pictures but just getting the thing to work was fun enough!