[Praestigium]

Good Working distance and magnification over 1:1 don't really mix

If working distance is your issue than a macro lens and cropping is the only practical answer I can come up with...

by the way, do you have any specific questions? You said you couldn't grasp all the info which is understandable so is there anything specifically that is confusing?

I'll go back and pick it apart and come back with a few questions :P

[yeatzee]

Ha alright

Feal free to PM later if you have any more btw, im more than happy to help

[Praestigium]

Alrighty, I tried keeping this simple, so here we go:

1. How exactly do I go about "stacking" lenses? Is this
through a reverse ring?

2. What is an adaptar ring? How does it link to a reverse ring?

3. When buying a reverse ring, how do I ensure that it will be the correct size for my lenses?

4. The term 'reversed,' what does it entitle exactly? I originally thought it meant two lenses that are stacked but some of the wording seems to indicate that this isn't the case? Or am I wrong?

5. (This is gona be so newbie) What classifies as a/the prime lense?

6. You also went on to say in your previous post that

"Good Working distance and magnification over 1:1 don't really mix"

That being the case, in your opinion, how are photos such as



and



...are taken? It would seem that they would require a reasonable amount of distance to not scare away their subjects?


---

Many thanks! No pressure answering these, take your time!

[yeatzee]

alrighty, i tried keeping this simple, so here we go:

1. How exactly do i go about "stacking" lenses? Is this
through a reverse ring?
i tape lenses together, but thats just because several of my lenses have dented filter rings.

2. What is an adaptar ring? How does it link to a reverse ring?
adapter ring? To adapt what?

3. When buying a reverse ring, how do i ensure that it will be the correct size for my lenses? it goes by the filter ring size. So my sigma 105mm is 58mm and my m 50mm is 49mm so i buy a 58/49mm reverse ring.

4. The term 'reversed,' what does it entitle exactly? I originally thought it meant two lenses that are stacked but some of the wording seems to indicate that this isn't the case? Or am i wrong? stacking basically means you have one lens mounted normally on the camera (or extension tubes which i've been dabbling with lately), and another lens reversed so its front element to front element. Reversing could be a single lens reversed straight onto the camera with a different adapter.

5. (this is gona be so newbie) what classifies as a/the prime lense?prime lens means it has a single focal length, i.e. 50mm compared to a zoom lens i.e. 18-55mm. Prime lenses are known for usually being sharper and smaller and faster making them ideal for reversing.

6. You also went on to say in your previous post that

"good working distance and magnification over 1:1 don't really mix"

that being the case, in your opinion, how are photos such as



and



...are taken? It would seem that they would require a reasonable amount of distance to not scare away their subjects? im not completely familiar with their exact setups so your should ask them exactly how much working distance they are getting. My sigma 105mm gives me like 12 inches of working distance at 1:1. My most recent shots were all shot with reversed lenses on extension tubes. My working distance on those was obviously enough to get those shots without the fly flying away yet it wasn't anywhere near 12 inches. Half the battle is getting good at approaching insects in a careful manor to get into position. Im sure they will agree


---

many thanks! No pressure answering these, take your time!

.
.
.

[Praestigium]

alrighty, i tried keeping this simple, so here we go:

1. How exactly do i go about "stacking" lenses? Is this
through a reverse ring?

i tape lenses together, but thats just because several of my lenses have dented filter rings.

2. What is an adaptar ring? How does it link to a reverse ring?

adapter ring? To adapt what?

3. When buying a reverse ring, how do i ensure that it will be the correct size for my lenses?

It goes by the filter ring size. So my sigma 105mm is 58mm and my m 50mm is 49mm so i buy a 58/49mm reverse ring.

4. The term 'reversed,' what does it entitle exactly? I originally thought it meant two lenses that are stacked but some of the wording seems to indicate that this isn't the case? Or am i wrong?

basically you have one lens mounted normally on the camera (or extension tubes which i've been dabbling with lately), and another lens reversed so its front element to front element

5. (this is gona be so newbie) what classifies as a/the prime lense?

prime lens means it has a single focal length, i.e. 50mm compared to a zoom lens i.e. 18-55mm

6. You also went on to say in your previous post that

"good working distance and magnification over 1:1 don't really mix"

that being the case, in your opinion, how are photos such as



and



...are taken?

It would seem that they would require a reasonable amount of distance to not scare away their subjects? im not completely familiar with their exact setups so your should ask them exactly how much working distance they are getting. My sigma 105mm gives me like 12 inches of working distance at 1:1. My most recent shots were all shot with reversed lenses on extension tubes. My working distance on those was obviously enough to get those shots without the fly flying away yet it wasn't anywhere near 12 inches. Half the battle is getting good at approaching insects in a careful manor to get into position. Im sure they will agree

1. I see, that clears up a few things

2. I honestly don't know, but whenever I check ebay for reverse rings they always advertise adapter rings along with them.

3. Awesome!

4. So basically the lenses end up facing each other? Do I need anything else to try this? Some type of adapter? Or will sticky tape suffice?

5. I KNEW THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHY I JUST HAD A BLANK WHEN I READ OVER IT >.<

6. I see, that definitely makes sense, and I think I can now see where the frustration originated from when you posted your thread


Thanks a lot for answering!

[yeatzee]

I use simple packing tape to reverse my lenses.

Hope that helped

Any more questions feel free to ask. Keep in mind though, this is just from my experience in taking macro's which im not very good at.

[Praestigium]

Im currently trying this as we speak, and I've quickly discovered why it's useful to have a prime lens for this since I have to juggle two focus rings at the moment

That said, the results is that I have to use my standard 18 - 55 on the camera and then put the sigma 28 - 90 in front of it, doing it the other way results in makes the image way too dark. This specifically sucks because I can't put the extension tubes on the 18 since it doesn't have an aperture ring =/

I'm itching to try this with some different lenses but all I have are those two >.<

PS: I was about to say that my extension tubes on their own yield more zoom, but I just double checked and this is not the case O_o

Many thanks yeatzee!

That said, I would really value your opinion on what you think I should do with my budget at the moment. Perhaps purchase a new lens? If so what do you recommend.

[yeatzee]

Yes you always want the primary lens when you reverse stack to be fast. Im not sure if you saw the pictures I did at 10:1 using the DA 55-300mm + reversed 28mm but let me tell you the viewfinder was pitch black. I had to use a heat lamp to light up the subject to focus

[Praestigium]

Yeah I'm thinking I'll also have to create a similar flash setup as yours.

[RioRico]

Mi dos centavos:

I love those 49mm-thread Takumars, so I use a 49mm thread reversal ring to stack a short Tak prime (fixed-focal length) onto a short tele prime. To stack lenses with different threads, I could use tape (but I'm lazy) or a step-down ring (if I could just remember where I put it...) and as none of my zooms are fast nor 49mm, I haven't tried stacking with any zoom. Decent fast manual primes are still available for not much money. My basic assortment of 28, 35, 55 (secondaries) and 100 and 135 (primaries, non-Tak) cost me less than US$100.

Yes, stacked lenses have their objectives (fronts) facing each other, as close as possible, to avoid vignetting. And a bit more magnification can be squeezed out by putting the primary on extension tubes or bellows... with a further loss of light, of course.

By "reverse adapter" is probably meant MOUNT reverse adapter, such as a 52mm-PK ring. Some lenses gain some magnification by simple reversal, but most lenses just give better results on extension tubes or bellows if they're reversed. And of course the reversed lens can be any brand -- the mount doesn't matter, just be sure there's manual aperture control. I use such a setup mostly to see how a lens works at macro, or to reverse longer lenses.

Ease of use: a 1:1 macro lens, manual or auto, is easy and flexible, but getting beyond 1:1 requires stacking or long extension. Greater working distance requires a longish lens. Buying macro lenses, manual usually costs rather less than auto, and AF is useless at macro ranges IMHO. A new AF macro lens is a beautiful tool for many purposes -- but I'm a cheap bastard, so I'll stick with my good cheap glass.

As for microphotography vs macrophotography vs photomicrography vs photomacrography... see Wikipedia.

"There's more than one way to skin a cat," she mused,
as she pinned its little feet to the dissection board.

[Marc Sabatella]

Some amazing shots in the thread, this is going to sound real amateurish, but how do I to tell what size Raynox I need to throw on which lens? Or is it a universal?

as you'll see if you do a Google search to find places selling the lens (like Amazon), it's a universal mount, fits all lenses with filter sizes 52mm - something a lot bigger. Or you can buy a stepping ring.

Would you also recommend purchasing a macro lens before hand or just throwing it on what I have at the momeny?

If you have a macro lens, you don't need a Raynox. The Raynox (and other closeup lenses) is designed to take *ordinary* telephoto lenses and let them focus much closer than they otherwise could - like a pair of high quality reading glasses. Macro lenses already focus very close - the Raynox wouldn't help them nearly as much.

[Marc Sabatella]

"Good Working distance and magnification over 1:1 don't really mix"

That being the case, in your opinion, how are photos such as
...are taken? It would seem that they would require a reasonable amount of distance to not scare away their subjects?

"Good" working is a relative term. If you want more than 1:1, you're dealing with inches. How many inches depends on focal length - 1:1 at 200mm is achieved at a much longer working distance than 1:1 at 50mm. So the longer the focal length the better as far as that goes. But you're still going to need skill and patience, as we're talking a matter of maybe 6-8 inches for 1:1 at 200mm, versus maybe 1-2 inches for 1:1 at 50mm.

That's a nice thing about the use of a closeup lens like the Raynox (and reversing stacks are similar in principle, I guess - just a lot more awkward to deal with). Unlike extension tubes, they provide more magnification with longer focal lengths. So if you've already got a 200mm lens, any attachment that makes it 1:1 means you'll have a "decent" working distance by macro standards. Whereas trying to achieve the same magnification starting with a 50mm lens means much smaller working distances.

[RioRico]

I'll once again tell of the rig I used for shooting closeups of rattlesnakes from a safe distance, back in the day. Olympus Pen-FT half-frame (HF) 135 SLR; Spiratone 400/5.6 tele; bellows and tubes; shoulder-stock mount. I used fast film on sunny days, yes, and I sure wish I'd had Shake Reduction then. At 1:1 (too close for snakes) that f/5.6 effectively became f/11 which isn't too terrible unless I added a 2x TC also (viper distance), which made it f/22 wide open. And of course the rig somewhat resembled an RPG launcher, not to be used around nervous people or surveillance devices. But yes, long-lens macro puts you at a greater working distance.

[dantuyhoa]

Get a Vivitar Series One 105/2.5 Macro .

[Praestigium]

Buying macro lenses, manual usually costs rather less than auto, and AF is useless at macro ranges IMHO. A new AF macro lens is a beautiful tool for many purposes -- but I'm a cheap bastard, so I'll stick with my good cheap glass.

Bahahaha, hell no, I'm sure that the majority of good macro photographers recommend investing in a lens with little regards to AF.


@Marc: I think I've finally grasped what the Raynox does. Assuming I invest in a macro lens, it would be wiser to grab/use extension tubes instead of the Raynox on it?

As with working distance I guess I have to suck it up and learn how to become a ninja

Get a Vivitar Series One 105/2.5 Macro

I just had a look on ebay and there are only Minolta mount models at the moment