[Thagomizer]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Hi all;

I've been doing a lot of shooting with reversed lenses of late. I don't own any Raynox macro acromats, but hope to add them to my roster at some point. I've seen great results from people putting them in front of macro lenses and non-macro optics too. Would anything useful happen if I were to slap one in front of a reversed lens? Has anyone tried this?

[FozzFoster]

I've never tried Raynox before but I've heard a lot of good things about them, give it a try and come back to us with an example!!

[AggieDad]

I'll try it with a reversed 28mm and/or a reversed 50mm if I have the necessary adaptor rings hanging around.

Don

[Thagomizer]

I'll try it with a reversed 28mm and/or a reversed 50mm if I have the necessary adaptor rings hanging around.

Don

Thanks. I look forward to your experiment. I am curious. I know there are reverse mount protector rings that let you use filters and lens caps on reversed lenses, so I'd have get something like that or kluge something together with a rear lens cap and a stepping ring or deglassed filter.

[dms]

They are both magnifying lenses, but the reversed lens is likely much greater in magnification, and if they are comparable in magnification the reversed lens having more glass elements should be the better-- but a reversed lens works on shorter FL, while the simpler diopter (Raynox) can work on longer FL (where it gives higher magnification) and thus gives more working distance from the object being photographed. They work best under different conditions.

BTW you can try a simpler single lens diopter to see how well it suits you. (A cheap set, +1, +3, +5 for example--likely $10 as a guess.) And then if you like it get the Raynox (which I assume is a 2 lens diopter), or equivalent ones made by Nikon/Canon/Etc, but you will know better what power you want.

---------- Post added 06-27-18 at 08:06 PM ----------

If you want to know what is possible, and the advantages/results using differing approaches, I would suggest you get a used copy of "The Manual of Close-Up Photography," by Lester Lefkowitz, Amphoto, 1979.

[david94903]

I've tried both. I don't have an option for one over the other. They both require a lot of patience. It's really about shooting style and personal preference. You should check out Naas's extreme macro site, he has excellent information about both techniques.


Reverse one lens onto another for extreme macro


Cheap extreme macro magnification with achromat close up lenses

[Thagomizer]

[/COLOR]

If you want to know what is possible, and the advantages/results using differing approaches, I would suggest you get a used copy of "The Manual of Close-Up Photography," by Lester Lefkowitz, Amphoto, 1979.

Thanks for the explanation. I knew some of it, I'm just not sure how they all work together.

I've got Lefkowitz; great stuff.John Shaw's Closeups in Nature is good too, but I think Lefkowitz is more comprehensive.I like how many things they try out and explain. Superb references.

---------- Post added 06-28-18 at 01:15 AM ----------

I've tried both. I don't have an option for one over the other. They both require a lot of patience. It's really about shooting style and personal preference. You should check out Naas's extreme macro site, he has excellent information about both techniques.
]

Nass;s site is a regular go to for me; it's like a digital Lefkowitz (see above). I'm wondering about using both techniques together, not either one on its own. Everything AND the kitchen sink. I see photos of other people's rigs where a Raynox is on a macro lens (right way 'round) on tubes and or TCs. I'm already using reversed lenses. Will adding a Raynox to them do anything good is what I want to know. I'm wondering about a Raynox in front of a reversed lens, not a Raynox or a reversed lens.

---

Last edited by Thagomizer; 06-27-2018 at 10:16 PM.

[david94903]

I'm wondering about a Raynox in front of a reversed lens, not a Raynox or a reversed lens.

I think you're going to just have to try it and see if it works. You're venturing into trial and error territory. Results could be interesting. You have me thinking about trying it now. Not sure exactly how'd I'd attach the Raynox. But then again, that's half the fun of trial and error.


You're going to have to try it and let us know the results.

[Not a Number]

Pentax made a reverse K-mount adapter for filters and macro ring lights. There are a couple of posts about this. Very rare item. If I can hit on the proper search keywords I'll post the links. Or somebody like @stevebrot with an encyclopedic memory would recall the actual name of the accessory.

Or you might adapt some of those low budget K-mount extension tubes that screw together like these:
Macro Extension Tube Ring for Pentax PK K Mount Kx Km k7/5 K200D K100D K20D K10D 713095316948 | eBay Use the female bayonet.

A deglassed teleconverter is unlikely to work because of the narrow opening for the optics.

[Thagomizer]

I know there are reverse mount protector rings that let you use filters and lens caps on reversed lenses, so I'd have get something like that or kluge something together with a rear lens cap and a stepping ring or deglassed filter.

This was the sort of thing I've got in mind for mounting stuff on a veversed lens:

DSLR Macro Lens Reverse Mount Accessories Protection Adapter Ring for Nikon AF AF S AF P Lens Re installed 52mm Filter-in Lens Adapter from Consumer Electronics on Aliexpress.com | Alibaba Group

I've not looked far, but Canon and Nikon ones turn up. If there's no Pentavx version, then kluge it is.

---------- Post added 06-28-18 at 11:37 AM ----------

Pentax made a reverse K-mount adapter for filters and macro ring lights. There are a couple of posts about this. Very rare item. If I can hit on the proper search keywords I'll post the links. Or somebody like @stevebrot with an encyclopedic memory would recall the actual name of the accessory.

Or you might adapt some of those low budget K-mount extension tubes that screw together like these:
Macro Extension Tube Ring for Pentax PK K Mount Kx Km k7/5 K200D K100D K20D K10D 713095316948 | eBay Use the female bayonet.

Yes, I imagine that would work, too. Good idea! Probably more secure than something cobbled together from a rear lens cap like I'd been suggesting.

EDIT: It looks like the Pentax version of the protecto ring is exactly the cheap extension tube you mentioned. There's one here: https://www.ebay.ca/itm/Pentax-PK-Rear-Lens-Reverse-Mount-Protection-Ring-58...MAAOSwTapV7CKf The depth of it looks like it might eat into working distance, of which there's not a lot to begin with.

[photoptimist]

Putting a Raynox in front of a reversed lens could be interesting but it will severely curtail the working distance.

You might try putting the Raynox between the reversed lens and the camera. That is, screw the Raynox on to the normal front of the lens and then reverse the pair. The Raynox is designed to bend light rays coming from a nearby object into light rays suitable for a lens focused on a farther object. In the reverse condition, the Raynox will nicely couple the reversed lens to the relatively nearby sensor plane. You'll get more magnification for a given amount of extension and I'd not be surprised if the IQ actually improves.

[Not a Number]

This was the sort of thing I've got in mind for mounting stuff on a veversed lens:

DSLR Macro Lens Reverse Mount Accessories Protection Adapter Ring for Nikon AF AF S AF P Lens Re installed 52mm Filter-in Lens Adapter from Consumer Electronics on Aliexpress.com | Alibaba Group

I've not looked far, but Canon and Nikon ones turn up. If there's no Pentavx version, then kluge it is.

---------- Post added 06-28-18 at 11:37 AM ----------



Yes, I imagine that would work, too. Good idea! Probably more secure than something cobbled together from a rear lens cap like I'd been suggesting.

EDIT: It looks like the Pentax version of the protecto ring is exactly the cheap extension tube you mentioned. There's one here: Pentax PK Rear Lens Reverse Mount Protection Ring+58mm UV Filter+58mm Lens Cap | eBay The depth of it looks like it might eat into working distance, of which there's not a lot to begin with.

The name of the defunct Pentax accessory is "Pentax Reverse Ring Light Holder K".

Looks like if you use the mount part only without a tube.
What is that thing called? - PentaxForums.com

See also:
Pentax Reverse Ring Light Holder - PentaxForums.com

[Thagomizer]

Putting a Raynox in front of a reversed lens could be interesting but it will severely curtail the working distance.

I'm used to short working distances, so I'm okay with that and "nteresting" is exactly what I'm after!

You might try putting the Raynox between the reversed lens and the camera. That is, screw the Raynox on to the normal front of the lens and then reverse the pair. The Raynox is designed to bend light rays coming from a nearby object into light rays suitable for a lens focused on a farther object. In the reverse condition, the Raynox will nicely couple the reversed lens to the relatively nearby sensor plane. You'll get more magnification for a given amount of extension and I'd not be surprised if the IQ actually improves.

Now that definitely sounds interesting. Once I get the Raynoxes (Raynii? Raynices?) I'll definitely try that. I've been playing with a reversed 18-55 II kit lens and I'd like to get even more out of it. This might be just the way to do it. Thanks photoptimist!

---------- Post added 06-28-18 at 03:39 PM ----------

Looks like if you use the mount part only without a tube.
What is that thing called? - PentaxForums.com

HA! I'd actually posted to that thread!

[AggieDad]

I did a VERY quick trial for you on my studio rig.

This was done with a K-3II with a Pentax bellows and a reversed 50mm lens. The bellows was about 1/2 extended such that the lens mount was about 115mm from the camera mount.

Each Raynox filter is about 20mm away from the reversed 50 as it required a series of reducing rings (attached with black tape) to create an interface between the two.

The photos are of a metric scale with the divisions being millimeters.

As you can see, the bare reversed 50mm creates an image of approximately 8.5mm of the scale – about a 2.78:1 multiplier.

Adding either the Raynox M-150 or the M-250 filter results in some nominal differences, with the M-250 having a multiplier of about 3.2:1.

As has been mentioned before, the Raynox shows its stuff when coupled with a 100 to 200mm lens. I can achieve about a 1.6:1 ratio with a 100mm lens and a Raynox M-250. With a 200mm lens and stacked Raynoxes (150 + 250), I can get a 3:1 ratio.

I hope this all helps.

Photo #1 – Reversed 50mm (no Raynox) Approx. 45mm from lens to subject



Photo #2 – Reversed 50mm with Raynox M-150 Approx. 27mm from lens to subject


Photo #3 – Reversed 50mm with Raynox M-250 Approx. 25mm from lens to subject

[Thagomizer]

Excellent! Thanks for testing that out.

I just tried my Vivitar 2XMTC behind my Kinotel cine lens and got some very close shots, some of which I'll post here, soonish. There are so many ways to play with macro; it's fun experimenting. Thanks, AggieDad for pitching in.