Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-11-2011, 06:48 PM   #16
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
isn't the MPE essentially just a reversed 35mm (macro?) with variable extension? I hear it referred to something like that all the time. You could try and replicate that with one of those olympus variable extension tubes (im sure there's adapters out there for PK) and a reversed 35mm (again im not sure if its a 35mm macro or "just" a 35mm prime. I am sure I've heard 35mm though)

09-11-2011, 07:14 PM   #17
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by yeatzee Quote
isn't the MPE essentially just a reversed 35mm (macro?) with variable extension? I hear it referred to something like that all the time. You could try and replicate that with one of those olympus variable extension tubes (im sure there's adapters out there for PK) and a reversed 35mm (again im not sure if its a 35mm macro or "just" a 35mm prime. I am sure I've heard 35mm though)
Hmmm, if you reverse a 35mm lens and rig it for macro-only work in the 1x-5x range, can you call it 65mm?

I look for "olympus variable extension tubes" on eBay and see prices over US$300. An M42 focusing helicoid (US$85-125, depending on length) plus M42 macro tubes would cost much less.

QuoteOriginally posted by goubejp Quote
May be with a wide angle mounted with a reverse adaptator ? Try using a 20 mm M lens , if I remember well withextension tubes I managed to get something close to 5x; it was in film days though
Yes, shorter is better for close work. My 21mm is too wide in front for my mount-reversal adapters, but I just tried a 24mm reversed and it's good for frame-filling. As I mentioned above, put that on ~150mm extension and it's at ~5:1 -- and working distance is ~45.5mm, not the 24mm of an unreversed 24mm prime.

Last edited by RioRico; 09-11-2011 at 08:42 PM.
09-11-2011, 08:45 PM   #18
Pentaxian
MegaPower's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hong Kong / Irvine, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 564
the 5x lens from canon will not focus to infinity. the lens is targeting on those who frequently shoot macro.

you can use extension tube on macro lens to get 5x

or reverse mount a wide lens on a tele lens to achieve a 5x magnification.
a 28mm lens reversed on a 135mm lens will give you about 5x magnification.

Search the forum and you will see a post on it.
09-11-2011, 09:20 PM - 1 Like   #19
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
Hmmm, if you reverse a 35mm lens and rig it for macro-only work in the 1x-5x range, can you call it 65mm?

I look for "olympus variable extension tubes" on eBay and see prices over US$300. An M42 focusing helicoid (US$85-125, depending on length) plus M42 macro tubes would cost much less.
From people vastly more knowledgeable than me in regards to macro photography..... I could have (and just might!) sworn/swear it was a reversed 35mm they equated it to. Plus isn't the focal length never actually what it says when you get into 1:1+? (or am i just going crazy lately? School will do that )

And yea obviously those are vastly overpriced (just saw a $150 MAYBE pentax lens listed for $700 earlier today on the o'l bay)..... I never base prices off of BIN ebay auctions. They go for ~$150 (with a couple around $100) from the auctions i've followed in the past in good/great condition. Your alternative would not give half as much flexibility, and cost about the same if your semi-patient


QuoteOriginally posted by MegaPower Quote

you can use extension tube on macro lens to get 5x

or reverse mount a wide lens on a tele lens to achieve a 5x magnification.
a 28mm lens reversed on a 135mm lens will give you about 5x magnification.
.
Yes but thats only practical with a 35mm macro (and to a much lesser extent a 50mm macro)

Yes reversing a 28 on a 135mm works incredible well if you have the right optics. This was taken using a F 135mm plus a reversed F 28mm stacked on the end:





09-11-2011, 11:15 PM   #20
Pentaxian
MegaPower's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hong Kong / Irvine, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 564
QuoteOriginally posted by yeatzee Quote
From people vastly more knowledgeable than me in regards to macro photography..... I could have (and just might!) sworn/swear it was a reversed 35mm they equated it to. Plus isn't the focal length never actually what it says when you get into 1:1+? (or am i just going crazy lately? School will do that )

And yea obviously those are vastly overpriced (just saw a $150 MAYBE pentax lens listed for $700 earlier today on the o'l bay)..... I never base prices off of BIN ebay auctions. They go for ~$150 (with a couple around $100) from the auctions i've followed in the past in good/great condition. Your alternative would not give half as much flexibility, and cost about the same if your semi-patient



Yes but thats only practical with a 35mm macro (and to a much lesser extent a 50mm macro)

Yes reversing a 28 on a 135mm works incredible well if you have the right optics. This was taken using a F 135mm plus a reversed F 28mm stacked on the end:

on Flickr
I learn more now.
but why it would be better to use a 35mm macro instead of longer macro (let's say 100mm)?
Is it diffraction?

I had similar result on A28 with A135. My A135, however, is sold.
I am going to try it on my A*300, my filter ring is dent and it takes some effort to make it work.
09-12-2011, 12:42 AM   #21
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by yeatzee Quote
I could have (and just might!) sworn/swear it was a reversed 35mm they equated it to. Plus isn't the focal length never actually what it says when you get into 1:1+? (or am i just going crazy lately?
I need to study reversed optics a bit, find out what's going on there. Meanwhile, about insanity: Much is possible. A basic finding of physics is, "Anything that can happen, WILL happen, eventually".

Oh yeah, +1 awesome photo!

QuoteOriginally posted by MegaPower Quote
but why it would be better to use a 35mm macro instead of longer macro (let's say 100mm)?
Is it diffraction?
No, not diffraction, just convenience. For similar magnification, a longer lens needs MUCH more extension. And to reach 5:1 we want the shortest focal length feasible, to keep the total rig from being very bulky.

Last edited by RioRico; 09-12-2011 at 07:22 AM.
09-12-2011, 05:54 AM   #22
anb
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6
Original Poster
I remember my dad's macro wich was a 100mm with a reverse ring for attatching it direclty to the body reversed, but stacking you say... How much light do I loose by stacking two lenses compared to using extension tubes?

If I stack a 35mm on my 50-200 WR, will any of the automatic features of the camera work or do I need to buy a lens with manual apperture ring?

By the way, amazing image yeatzee, you've got skills.

Last edited by anb; 09-12-2011 at 06:16 AM.
09-12-2011, 07:25 AM   #23
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,965
QuoteOriginally posted by anb Quote
I remember my dad's macro wich was a 100mm with a reverse ring for attatching it direclty to the body reversed, but stacking you say... How much light do I loose by stacking two lenses compared to using extension tubes?

If I stack a 35mm on my 50-200 WR, will any of the automatic features of the camera work or do I need to buy a lens with manual apperture ring?

By the way, amazing image yeatzee, you've got skills.
In principle you don't lose any light by stacking. In practice you lose a little bit due to the extra surfaces.

The stacked lens should have an aperture ring for control but it is possible to control its aperture by other means. The following example shows a kit lens reversed onto a camera body but clearly the same trick will work when reversed on another lens.


The little plastic tube over the aperture lever rubs against the guard & hold the lever in place.
Adding a short extension tube to this setup should increase the magnification range and provide "zoom" magnifications up to and beyond 5x. I'll try it later & report back.

Dave

09-15-2011, 07:28 AM   #24
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Nass's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The British Isles
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,251
My latest greatest mad craze, anyone ever tried reversing a 28 onto an -F 35-135? In theory that'd be a similar span as the MPE-65, not sure if it'd actually work though (my zoom + reversed lens trials have been a disaster).
09-15-2011, 09:33 AM   #25
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
I've reverse-stacked primes onto zooms but I don't care for that much. First, if the primary is an AF zoom, there's the temptation to use its automation. FAIL. The primary's aperture should be wide-open, to avoid vignetting; and AF ain't great at macro distances. Second, zooms usually aren't as fast as longer primes, and there's little enough light getting through as it is. And a prime will just be a bit sharper than any but the best zooms.

To work with similar magnification levels, just reverse-mount a 28mm prime on bellows. And there's a trick here: Working distance with any reversed prime will be the lens mount's register or flange-focal distance. Pentax register is ~45.5mm. T2 register is 55mm and there are more than a few cheap T-T2-TX wide lenses around. Pentacon 6 register is ~74mm, even better, but I don't know if cheap P6 28's abound. Anyway, reversing a wide T2 gives almost 1/2in more working room. That's certainly better than extending a 28mm, because macro working distance will be right around 30mm from the lens' optical center, which is mighty close.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, macro, magnification, pentax lens, slr lens, zoom
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax primes (F50/1.7, F50/2.8 macro, F100/2.8 macro, FA100/2.8 macro) dgaies Sold Items 5 11-02-2010 11:51 AM
For Sale - Sold: PENTAX-D FA 50mm F2.8 Macro and Sigma 180mm F/3.5 EX DG IF APO Macro Lens LenWick Sold Items 9 06-16-2010 11:09 AM
For Sale - Sold: Vivitar S1 105mm f2.5 1:1 Macro; Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 1:1 Macro; Pentax-F 1.7X thomasxie Sold Items 4 02-02-2010 05:40 AM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma DL Macro Super 70-300mm f/4-5.6 1:2 Macro Lens, Worldwide Ship! wallyb Sold Items 10 12-16-2009 10:36 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:45 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top