Digital Rebel goes 5x life size Cheap!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by JohnR66, May 1, 2005.

  1. JohnR66

    JohnR66 Guest

    Using lenses you may already have, You can get about 5x life size with
    little effort and great quality. If you did not have any of the equipment,
    it shouldn't cost over $150 to purchase.

    The picture links below are from the millimeter hash marks on a stainless
    steel rule! You are seeing the sampled down full frame in the first shot. It
    looks a bit soft on the right due to a slight tilt while hand holding:

    http://home.att.net/~jriegle/macro1.jpg

    This shot is a 1:1 crop. Notice the color mottling. This is not from a
    digital camera artifact. This is from the diffraction of light of the finely
    brushed surface of the metal. I can see the same effect with a microscope.

    http://home.att.net/~jriegle/macro2.jpg

    This picture is is the lens setup:

    http://home.att.net/~jriegle/macro3.jpg

    I used the Canon EF 80-200mm II. It costs about $100 and delivers a very
    good image (see Canons own MTF charts and compare with their other
    inexpensive telezooms). It has a filter thread dia. of 52mm. The lens that
    is reversed and attached to the front is the excellent Pentax 50mm f/1.7 M.
    It has a 49mm thread.

    I had to join the two together. I had 52mm and 49mm UV filters sitting
    around. I tend to accumulated them off of used lenses I buy. The slight
    difference in size allows one to slip inside of the other with the threads
    facing out. Perfect fit to epoxy them together. Removing the retaining clip,
    I removed the glass and used 2 part epoxy to cement the rings together for a
    strong bond (be sure not to get epoxy on the threads). After curing for a
    couple hours it was ready for a test run.

    Since I had everything needed, I spent only $3 on the epoxy. Notice that
    there is no vignetting, and is sharp corner to corner. I hope to get some
    more interesting shots later. If you try this for yourself, the prime lens
    should have a focal length of no less than about 70mm or so on cameras with
    the sensor the size of the dRebel. 35mm film or full frame digital needs a
    minimum of 100mm or more. The reversed lens should be a sharp fast lens.
    Stopping it down a stop or two may improve sharpness. In the test above the
    50mm was set to 2.8 and the zoom was set wide open (f/5.6) at 200mm.

    John
     
    JohnR66, May 1, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. JohnR66

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "JohnR66" <> writes:
    > [big snip]
    > I had to join the two together. I had 52mm and 49mm UV filters sitting
    > around. I tend to accumulated them off of used lenses I buy. The slight
    > difference in size allows one to slip inside of the other with the threads
    > facing out. Perfect fit to epoxy them together. Removing the retaining clip,
    > I removed the glass and used 2 part epoxy to cement the rings together for a
    > strong bond (be sure not to get epoxy on the threads). After curing for a
    > couple hours it was ready for a test run.
    >
    > Since I had everything needed, I spent only $3 on the epoxy. Notice that
    > there is no vignetting, and is sharp corner to corner.


    Very very nice. I'm going to have to try it with lenses that I have
    around. I've gotten crappy but useable shots through a big cheap
    loupe. Your method looks a lot better.
     
    Paul Rubin, May 1, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. JohnR66

    paul Guest

    Paul Rubin wrote:

    > "JohnR66" <> writes:
    >
    >>[big snip]
    >>I had to join the two together. I had 52mm and 49mm UV filters sitting
    >>around. I tend to accumulated them off of used lenses I buy. The slight
    >>difference in size allows one to slip inside of the other with the threads
    >>facing out. Perfect fit to epoxy them together. Removing the retaining clip,
    >>I removed the glass and used 2 part epoxy to cement the rings together for a
    >>strong bond (be sure not to get epoxy on the threads). After curing for a
    >>couple hours it was ready for a test run.
    >>
    >>Since I had everything needed, I spent only $3 on the epoxy. Notice that
    >>there is no vignetting, and is sharp corner to corner.

    >
    >
    > Very very nice. I'm going to have to try it with lenses that I have
    > around. I've gotten crappy but useable shots through a big cheap
    > loupe. Your method looks a lot better.



    Hmm, I guess it doesn't work with an auto-aperture lense. I just tried
    with a Nikon 'G' on the end & it seems to stop down all the way when
    sleeping so the image was incredibly dark. I used a 62-77 step-up ring
    to step down. When in macro/tele range, the large front element is not
    being used, just a bit at the center.

    I've got some cool results before using a slide projector lens (two very
    different sizes on 2 very different cameras. The quality was awful but
    this should be pretty decent.
     
    paul, May 1, 2005
    #3
  4. In article <8MWce.167166$>,
    "JohnR66" <> wrote:

    > Using lenses you may already have, You can get about 5x life size with
    > little effort and great quality. If you did not have any of the equipment,
    > it shouldn't cost over $150 to purchase.
    >
    > The picture links below are from the millimeter hash marks on a stainless
    > steel rule! You are seeing the sampled down full frame in the first shot. It
    > looks a bit soft on the right due to a slight tilt while hand holding:
    >
    > http://home.att.net/~jriegle/macro1.jpg
    >
    > This shot is a 1:1 crop. Notice the color mottling. This is not from a
    > digital camera artifact. This is from the diffraction of light of the finely
    > brushed surface of the metal. I can see the same effect with a microscope.
    >
    > http://home.att.net/~jriegle/macro2.jpg
    >
    > This picture is is the lens setup:
    >
    > http://home.att.net/~jriegle/macro3.jpg
    >
    > I used the Canon EF 80-200mm II. It costs about $100 and delivers a very
    > good image (see Canons own MTF charts and compare with their other
    > inexpensive telezooms). It has a filter thread dia. of 52mm. The lens that
    > is reversed and attached to the front is the excellent Pentax 50mm f/1.7 M.
    > It has a 49mm thread.
    >
    > I had to join the two together. I had 52mm and 49mm UV filters sitting
    > around. I tend to accumulated them off of used lenses I buy. The slight
    > difference in size allows one to slip inside of the other with the threads
    > facing out. Perfect fit to epoxy them together. Removing the retaining clip,
    > I removed the glass and used 2 part epoxy to cement the rings together for a
    > strong bond (be sure not to get epoxy on the threads). After curing for a
    > couple hours it was ready for a test run.
    >
    > Since I had everything needed, I spent only $3 on the epoxy. Notice that
    > there is no vignetting, and is sharp corner to corner. I hope to get some
    > more interesting shots later. If you try this for yourself, the prime lens
    > should have a focal length of no less than about 70mm or so on cameras with
    > the sensor the size of the dRebel. 35mm film or full frame digital needs a
    > minimum of 100mm or more. The reversed lens should be a sharp fast lens.
    > Stopping it down a stop or two may improve sharpness. In the test above the
    > 50mm was set to 2.8 and the zoom was set wide open (f/5.6) at 200mm.
    >
    > John


    How do the ratio of focal distances work out? I have a 10-22, 24-85,
    and 70-300 now. The 50mm f/1.4 would likely be my next lens.

    I tried putting a 4x closeup filter on the 70-300mm DO IS. What a mess
    that was!
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, May 1, 2005
    #4
  5. JohnR66

    Silicon Sam Guest

    How far from the ruler did you have to get? Was wondering how much
    room you had for lighting.

    Raymond
     
    Silicon Sam, May 1, 2005
    #5
  6. On Sun, 01 May 2005 04:11:33 +0100, paul wrote:

    > Hmm, I guess it doesn't work with an auto-aperture lense. I just tried
    > with a Nikon 'G' on the end & it seems to stop down all the way when
    > sleeping so the image was incredibly dark.


    To operate the aperture of the reversed lens you may need a special
    manual adaptor. I don't know about Nikon but for Canon FD lenses a manual
    adapter to operate the aperture ring and a Macrohood to open up the
    aperture were available.

    --

    Gautam Majumdar

    Please send e-mails to
     
    Gautam Majumdar, May 1, 2005
    #6
  7. JohnR66

    JohnR66 Guest

    "Silicon Sam" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > How far from the ruler did you have to get? Was wondering how much
    > room you had for lighting.
    >
    > Raymond
    >

    I'm getting around 1.5 inches (just shy of 4 cm). The shape of the rear end
    of the 50mm lens allows more light in as compared to typical macros (another
    fringe benefit).
    To answer the previous poster's question, The ratio depends on many factors.
    How recessed the front element are relative to the filter ring will make a
    difference. Setting both lenses for close focusing will increase
    magnification a bit. In my test, I could have gone a bit higher
    magnification. In my case, I'm getting around 5x at 200mm or about 1.25x at
    50mm. Keep in mind, you want to be at least 70mm on the main lens to avoid
    vignetting. Using a zoom lens is another benefit as you can change the
    magnification, but you have to move the camera since the front of the lens
    extends, but so does Canon's 5x macro.

    John
     
    JohnR66, May 1, 2005
    #7
  8. JohnR66

    JohnR66 Guest

    "Gautam Majumdar" <> wrote in message
    news:wr0de.7273$...
    > On Sun, 01 May 2005 04:11:33 +0100, paul wrote:
    >
    >> Hmm, I guess it doesn't work with an auto-aperture lense. I just tried
    >> with a Nikon 'G' on the end & it seems to stop down all the way when
    >> sleeping so the image was incredibly dark.

    >
    > To operate the aperture of the reversed lens you may need a special
    > manual adaptor. I don't know about Nikon but for Canon FD lenses a manual
    > adapter to operate the aperture ring and a Macrohood to open up the
    > aperture were available.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Gautam Majumdar
    >
    > Please send e-mails to


    I know Pentax and Nikon manual focus lenses and AF models with the aperture
    ring will set the blades with the lens off camera. For this reason it is
    best to go find a used Pentax 50mm f/1.7 or Nikon 50mm f/1.8 to use. They
    are typically in the $15-40 range.
    John
     
    JohnR66, May 1, 2005
    #8
  9. JohnR66

    Guest

    "JohnR66" <> wrote:

    >Using lenses you may already have, You can get about 5x life size with
    >little effort and great quality. If you did not have any of the equipment,
    >it shouldn't cost over $150 to purchase


    [snip]

    Didn't they used to make a double threaded ring you could buy to screw
    two lenses front to front? I was googling a bit and couldn't find
    any.

    Wes
    --
    Reply to:
    Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Alpha Charlie Echo Golf Romeo Oscar Paul dot Charlie Charlie
    Lycos address is a spam trap.
     
    , May 1, 2005
    #9
  10. JohnR66

    paul Guest

    Gautam Majumdar wrote:

    > On Sun, 01 May 2005 04:11:33 +0100, paul wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Hmm, I guess it doesn't work with an auto-aperture lense. I just tried
    >>with a Nikon 'G' on the end & it seems to stop down all the way when
    >>sleeping so the image was incredibly dark.

    >
    >
    > To operate the aperture of the reversed lens you may need a special
    > manual adaptor. I don't know about Nikon but for Canon FD lenses a manual
    > adapter to operate the aperture ring and a Macrohood to open up the
    > aperture were available.



    I got it working by taping back a little lever to open the aperture.
    Nikon 28-200 at 200mm closest focus on the front of a 70-200 f/2.8 with
    2x teleconverter focused to infinity. Almost 2-foot long rig & it
    focuses at about 1/2 inch. The date on a penny fills the frame width.
    It's a real struggle to get an actual image though, I'll have to clamp
    it to a vise or something <grin>.
     
    paul, May 1, 2005
    #10
  11. JohnR66

    paul Guest

    paul wrote:
    >
    > I got it working by taping back a little lever to open the aperture.
    > Nikon 28-200 at 200mm closest focus on the front of a 70-200 f/2.8 with
    > 2x teleconverter focused to infinity. Almost 2-foot long rig & it
    > focuses at about 1/2 inch. The date on a penny fills the frame width.
    > It's a real struggle to get an actual image though, I'll have to clamp
    > it to a vise or something <grin>.



    Here's the results:
    <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/2005-05-01-super-macro>
    Not great but really really close-up! About 4x.
     
    paul, May 1, 2005
    #11
  12. Gautam Majumdar <> writes:
    >To operate the aperture of the reversed lens you may need a special
    >manual adaptor. I don't know about Nikon but for Canon FD lenses a manual
    >adapter to operate the aperture ring and a Macrohood to open up the
    >aperture were available.


    Get an old manual-focus lens. Nikon, Minolta, and Ricoh (probably other
    manufacturers too) manual lenses have a spring that stops down the lens
    to the manually-set aperture, while the camera uses a lever to open it
    wide for viewing. When these lenses are not mounted on a camera, they
    automatically revert to ordinary manual aperture control.

    Pentax screw-mount lenses should be even cheaper used. These typically
    have an A/M lever on them. In M you have full manual control of
    aperture, while in A the lens sits wide open all the time. (When on a
    camera, the camera pushes a pin to stop the lens down).

    Either way, no special adapter is needed to open the lens up for
    reversed macro use. In fact, I've never encountered a manual-focus SLR
    lens that needed a special adapter to operate the aperture when off the
    camera (but I haven't used Canon gear).

    There are lots of inexpensive used 40, 45, and 50 mm manual-focus SLR
    lenses still around.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, May 1, 2005
    #12
  13. writes:

    >Didn't they used to make a double threaded ring you could buy to screw
    >two lenses front to front? I was googling a bit and couldn't find
    >any.


    They still exist. A Google search for "macro adapter reversing ring"
    got 32000 hits. All of the links on the first page seemed to be for the
    device in question.

    That's certainly easier than epoxying two filter rings together. It's
    also more likely to keep the two lens optical axes parallel; unless the
    gluing is done carefully it's easy for a little tilt to creep in.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, May 1, 2005
    #13
  14. JohnR66

    paul Guest

    Dave Martindale wrote:

    > writes:
    >
    >
    >>Didn't they used to make a double threaded ring you could buy to screw
    >>two lenses front to front? I was googling a bit and couldn't find
    >>any.

    >
    >
    > They still exist. A Google search for "macro adapter reversing ring"
    > got 32000 hits. All of the links on the first page seemed to be for the
    > device in question.
    >
    > That's certainly easier than epoxying two filter rings together. It's
    > also more likely to keep the two lens optical axes parallel; unless the
    > gluing is done carefully it's easy for a little tilt to creep in.



    The normal way to do it is mount the reversed lens directly on the
    camera rather than on the end of another lens.
     
    paul, May 1, 2005
    #14
  15. JohnR66

    Guest

    (Dave Martindale) wrote:

    >They still exist. A Google search for "macro adapter reversing ring"
    >got 32000 hits. All of the links on the first page seemed to be for the
    >device in question.


    Thank you. I wasn't able to figure out the magic query. I once was
    looking for info on running a pc w/o a monitor and until I used 'no
    headed', I was getting useless returns.

    Wes

    --
    Reply to:
    Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Alpha Charlie Echo Golf Romeo Oscar Paul dot Charlie Charlie
    Lycos address is a spam trap.
     
    , May 1, 2005
    #15
  16. JohnR66

    Paul Rubin Guest

    writes:
    > Thank you. I wasn't able to figure out the magic query. I once was
    > looking for info on running a pc w/o a monitor and until I used 'no
    > headed', I was getting useless returns.


    http://www.camerafilters.com/pages/macrorings.aspx

    has some low priced ones with very reasonable shipping charges. They
    also have low cost adapters, lens caps, and similar gizmos.
     
    Paul Rubin, May 1, 2005
    #16
  17. JohnR66

    Guest

    In message <>,
    wrote:

    >Didn't they used to make a double threaded ring you could buy to screw
    >two lenses front to front? I was googling a bit and couldn't find
    >any.


    B&H caries them in a variety of sizes. They cost about $6, IIRC.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , May 2, 2005
    #17
  18. >Dave Martindale wrote:
    >> That's certainly easier than epoxying two filter rings together. It's
    >> also more likely to keep the two lens optical axes parallel; unless the
    >> gluing is done carefully it's easy for a little tilt to creep in.


    paul <> writes:
    >The normal way to do it is mount the reversed lens directly on the
    >camera rather than on the end of another lens.


    Well, a ring to mount two lenses front-to-front was exactly what he was
    asking for.

    Besides, when would you mount a reversed lens directly on a camera?

    Do you mean using a DSLR camera with just one lens mounted reversed?
    That doesn't make sense.

    Or are you referring to the fact that P&S cameras often don't have
    filter threads on the lens, and instead mount filters via an adapter
    tube. In that case, the reversed lens is mechanically attached to the
    camera body, not the main lens - but you still need a double male
    threaded adapter ring for this.

    Anyway, he was asking about a DSLR, where the reversed lens does indeed
    mount to the end of the main lens.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, May 2, 2005
    #18
  19. JohnR66

    Paul Rubin Guest

    (Dave Martindale) writes:
    > Besides, when would you mount a reversed lens directly on a camera?


    That's a very normal close-up technique and there are reversing rings
    for it.
     
    Paul Rubin, May 2, 2005
    #19
  20. JohnR66

    Paul Rubin Guest

    writes:
    > B&H caries them in a variety of sizes. They cost about $6, IIRC.


    Argh, yes, search for "macro couplers" on bhphoto.com.
     
    Paul Rubin, May 2, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. BPO
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    6,301
  2. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    652
    Doug MacLean
    Feb 7, 2006
  3. jk

    Digital Rebel and .JPG size

    jk, Nov 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    492
    Gisle Hannemyr
    Nov 10, 2004
  4. Dr Nick

    Digital Rebel 300D vs Rebel XT

    Dr Nick, Oct 26, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    898
    Matt Ion
    Nov 4, 2005
  5. Rick Geyerman

    Digital Rebel lens to Film Rebel?

    Rick Geyerman, Sep 23, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    689
    Rick Geyerman
    Sep 23, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page