Reverse Lens Macro, Couple or Body?

Mr Jones

Mr Jones

Mr Jones

Soldato
Joined
16 May 2006
Posts
11,334
Location
Dubai
Hi guys,

I want to get more into macro photography and I simply can't afford any more lens till I either win the lottery or have spare cash. So the cheaper option would be either reversing my current lens.

I own;
Canon 20D
Canon EF 50mm (52mm filter size)
Canon EFS 18-55mm IS (58mm filter size)
Sigma 70-300mm DG Non-APO Macro (58mm filter size)

Would it be wise to spend cash on a coupler between the Canon 18-55mm and the 50mm reversed (if there's a coupler around?!) or would it be wiser to just get the 50mm reversed to body adaptor?

On another note, can anyone show me some of your samples with just the 50mm reversed (or coupled with others)? I would like to see what kind of IQ can be produced - I mean, for £7, it's better than spending over 200 for a new Macro :p

Cheers.
 
I was reading around and found quite a few people have coupled the kit lens (non-IS version) with the 50mm, via a coupler (checked out and can have one imported for under a fiver!)

Some even tried hand held, so I thought I'll give it a go and see if that coupler will be justified...
MacroTest1of3.jpg

MacroTest2of3.jpg

MacroTest3of3.jpg


That's just 3 test shots!:eek: I'm sold!

Edit: The DoF is really thin though, so I'll experiment more next time, with higher Aperture and longer exposure. All taken with just natural light in my room too.
 
The vignetting looks annoying. My extension tube came from hong kong in 4 days and cost £6 including delivery. Same kind of effect but with no vignetting so a larger picture.
 
I wouldn't use the coupler, a reverse ring would do a similar thing without the vignetting as would extension tubes.

Minimum Magnification - 18-55mm IS @ 55mm:


Roughly 0.8:1 magnification

img8157mg7.jpg


Max with onboard flash - 18-55mm @ 24mm:

10ws80p.jpg


Roughtly 2:1 magnification

'Radio' is about the same size as 'Jones' on your card.

Sorry they're so crap... first thing that came to hand, here's one I took earlier at about 35mm. The bug is 6-8mm long.

9fyvll.jpg
 
Last edited:
Raikiri said:
I wouldn't use the coupler, a reverse ring would do a similar thing without the vignetting as would extension tubes.
Click to expand...

So the general consensus is to get extension tubes / reverse ring(some are quite expensive...) ?
How shallow would the DoF become with say an extension tube
"9mm tube (Tube 1)
16mm tube (Tube 2)
30mm tube (Tube 3) "

+ the 50mm prime?

Anyone have any experience with those?
 
Would anyone have a pic of these extension tubes or an image to show how this works, I'm slightly confused by what you all mean :p
 
Dr Jones said:
So the general consensus is to get extension tubes / reverse ring(some are quite expensive...) ?
How shallow would the DoF become with say an extension tube
"9mm tube (Tube 1)
16mm tube (Tube 2)
30mm tube (Tube 3) "

+ the 50mm prime?

Anyone have any experience with those?
Click to expand...


It depends on what aperture you use on the lens, the more expensive Kenko tubes will let you set it as you go, with the cheaper ones you'll have to change it before fitting them.
 
Raikiri said:
It depends on what aperture you use on the lens, the more expensive Kenko tubes will let you set it as you go, with the cheaper ones you'll have to change it before fitting them.
Click to expand...

I've been temped to have a go with the cheaper tubes - but was wondering how setting the aperture works. Just to clarify what you're saying - you stop down the lens while it's fitted to the camera body, then put the tube on, then the lens, and it will retain the aperture you set?!
 
Put the lens on the body, set the aperture you want, hold down the DOF preview button and remove the lens and then it will.

Then fit the lens to the extension tubes and mount it onto the body.

Edit - I have done it on this lens:

2qn8siv.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom