[RioRico]

Yeah i guess they are "cheap"..... just not cheap enough

Sears, Vivitar, Focal; Toyo / TOU / 5-Star; Lentar, Albinar, Porst; Jupiter.

I've had a pile of cheap 200's; my rough tests for sharpness and fringing only weeded out a couple of them, mostly for physical damage / upset optics. I think 200mm is one of those common focal lengths like 28-35-50-135 where you must hunt to find a really bad one. And of course you can always hold it for a couple months and resell it for twice as much!

[yeatzee]

Sears, Vivitar, Focal; Toyo / TOU / 5-Star; Lentar, Albinar, Porst; Jupiter.

I've had a pile of cheap 200's; my rough tests for sharpness and fringing only weeded out a couple of them, mostly for physical damage / upset optics. I think 200mm is one of those common focal lengths like 28-35-50-135 where you must hunt to find a really bad one. And of course you can always hold it for a couple months and resell it for twice as much!

Better/equal to the Pentax M?

[RioRico]

Sears, Vivitar, Focal; Toyo / TOU / 5-Star; Lentar, Albinar, Porst; Jupiter.

Better/equal to the Pentax M?

The subject was *cheap* 200's, remember? Anyway, I haven't an M200, so I can't say. I *can* say that my fave's are my Tele-Takumar 200/5.6, Jupitar-21M 200/4, Super-Takumar 200/4, and Vivitar-Komine Tele 200/3.5 (18 iris blades) in that order. But I like the Viv more for its bokeh than its sharpness. I'll say the Jupiter is the sharpest (and heaviest at 950g) of my 200's.

My Focal-Cimko and Lentar-Tokina 200/3.5's, and TOU / 5-Star 200/4.5, are all quite decent. The only 200's I've sold are another SuperTak 200/4 (broken aperture), and a Rexatar 200/3.5 (too much fringing for me, but the buyer loved the sharpness). I've not yet found a *bad* 200.

But I don't use any of those as primaries for a reverse stack, mainly because 1) I don't like dealing with the weight/length, and 2) the threads aren't conducive FOR ME. I like using short (28,35,50,55) Pentax secondaries with 49mm threads, and no step rings. My only 200 that qualifies is the TeleTak and it's too slow. I've been using a cheap Hanimar Preset 135/3.5 with good results. I more recently acquired the S-M-C Takumar and SMC-M 135/3.5's, which I haven't yet tried stacked. I'll give them a go when I return home in a few weeks.

[Tippon]

The M 200 would be a fantastic lens for a stacked lens macro project

Good idea! Yeah, I forgot to mention that. With a cheap simple male-male thread-reversal ring, a 50mm secondary can be stacked on the 200mm primary for 4:1 magnification! Shoot the reflections on an ant's butt! Umm, be sure to use a tripod, eh?

If I'm reading this right, could I use my 80-200mm lens and my 35-70mm lens with the right adaptors to get some decent magnification? If so, would it be:

camera body - reverse adaptor ring - big lens - male to male ring - small lens?

Also, could a teleconverter be added to the big lens to give even more magnification, or am I just being daft now?

[newarts]

Yeatzee says that some reverse stacks appear to be optically better than either lens by itself.

Other than that, and perhaps fooling the camera into thinking an A lens is mounted, what's the advantage of reverse stacks over extension tubes or bellows?

Maybe field flatness at both subject and image planes? Can anyone demonstrate this?

[yeatzee]

Yeatzee says that some reverse stacks appear to be optically better than either lens by itself.

Other than that, and perhaps fooling the camera into thinking an A lens is mounted, what's the advantage of reverse stacks over extension tubes or bellows?

Maybe field flatness at both subject and image planes? Can anyone demonstrate this?

portability per same ratio of magnification
F 135mm + reversed 50m/28mm = fairly small setup when comparing a setup to get the same magnification with reversed 50/28mm and bellows/extension tubes.

[yeatzee]

The subject was *cheap* 200's, remember? Anyway, I haven't an M200, so I can't say. I *can* say that my fave's are my Tele-Takumar 200/5.6, Jupitar-21M 200/4, Super-Takumar 200/4, and Vivitar-Komine Tele 200/3.5 (18 iris blades) in that order. But I like the Viv more for its bokeh than its sharpness. I'll say the Jupiter is the sharpest (and heaviest at 950g) of my 200's.

My Focal-Cimko and Lentar-Tokina 200/3.5's, and TOU / 5-Star 200/4.5, are all quite decent. The only 200's I've sold are another SuperTak 200/4 (broken aperture), and a Rexatar 200/3.5 (too much fringing for me, but the buyer loved the sharpness). I've not yet found a *bad* 200.

But I don't use any of those as primaries for a reverse stack, mainly because 1) I don't like dealing with the weight/length, and 2) the threads aren't conducive FOR ME. I like using short (28,35,50,55) Pentax secondaries with 49mm threads, and no step rings. My only 200 that qualifies is the TeleTak and it's too slow. I've been using a cheap Hanimar Preset 135/3.5 with good results. I more recently acquired the S-M-C Takumar and SMC-M 135/3.5's, which I haven't yet tried stacked. I'll give them a go when I return home in a few weeks.

Well I say M 200mm because i had it at one point and sold it. Its a fairly cheap lens as well, and has 49mm filter threads, and is small/light weight.

[newarts]

portability per same ratio of magnification
F 135mm + reversed 50m/28mm = fairly small setup when comparing a setup to get the same magnification with reversed 50/28mm and bellows/extension tubes.

The focal length of the stacked 135 & 28mm lenses is about 23mm. This is smaller than the 28mm lens by about 20% so need be only about 4/5 as far from the sensor. not a huge space savings.

I think the results you get are great but can't help but wonder if there is something special going on optically with the stacked lenses. Have you tried to see if you get similar results with a belllows or tubes?

[RioRico]

If I'm reading this right, could I use my 80-200mm lens and my 35-70mm lens with the right adaptors to get some decent magnification? If so, would it be:

camera body - reverse adaptor ring - big lens - male to male ring - small lens?

Also, could a teleconverter be added to the big lens to give even more magnification, or am I just being daft now?

You *can* use zooms, but you'll likely have lower IQ and smaller apertures than with primes. (Small aperture ==> diffraction softness). Some zooms also have a tendency to creep, so you're never sure of your magnification. Your long primary should be a wide-open prime or you'll likely have vignetting. Your short secondary really needs a manual aperture.

And no, don't put a mount-reversal ring on the primary. A typical stack might be:

camera <-- (mount adapter, if needed) <-- primary <-- M-M ring <-- secondary

For example, my typical ~4x stack is like this:

K20D <-- M42-PK adapter <-- Hanimar 135/3.5 <-- 49-49 ring <-- SuperTak 35/3.5

A faster and slightly shorter stack for 3.75x would be:

K20D <-- M42-PK ring <-- SuperTak 105/2.8 <-- 49-49 ring <-- Vivitar CFWA 28/2

Adding a TC will just reduce aperture and IQ. Unless it's a simple long tube like my Hanimar, the tele already has a TC optical group inside it. IMHO you'll get the best results with the simplest feasible optics.

...what's the advantage of reverse stacks over extension tubes or bellows?

That is a VERY GOOD QUESTION!! My bible of macro shooting doesn't IIRC mention advantages. (It's 1200 miles away so I can't refer to it this month). I'll guess that the major pro's are:

1) easy to lash together with gaffer's tape,
2) compactness per magnification, and
3) consistency and precision.

With reverse-stacking, and tubes, you can know the exact magnification. That's critical for precise technical work. Put an Industar-50 on 50mm of tubes and you KNOW you're at 1:1. Stack a SuperTak 35 on a SuperTak 105 and you KNOW you're at 3:1. Bellows, and macro-zooming, are just too slippery for such applications. No, my Schneider Betavaron 50-125 enlarger zoom is not a precise instrument, especially on bellows.

The con of reverse-stacking is the close working distance.

Well I say M 200mm because i had it at one point and sold it. Its a fairly cheap lens as well, and has 49mm filter threads, and is small/light weight.

Then I guess I should look for one. Zowie, yet another 200...

[Tippon]

Thanks RioRico

I ordered a m-m ring and a mount reversal ring for less than £3 each on Ebay last night. I know I'm not gonna get fantastic results with my kit, but I'm very new to this, so it's all a learning curve for me

[Lindethiel]

Totally hi-jacking this thread btw, but if I wanna get a reverse mount ring for a 50mm lens I want to be getting 49mm reverse ring right? I'm seeing a lot of listings that have two mm numbers, these are for joining two different lenses right?

[yeatzee]

Totally hi-jacking this thread btw, but if I wanna get a reverse mount ring for a 50mm lens I want to be getting 49mm reverse ring right? I'm seeing a lot of listings that have two mm numbers, these are for joining two different lenses right?

there's two types of adapters. Reversing adapters that go xxmm of the lenses filter threads to K mount or stacking adapters that go xxmm of the lenses filter threads to xxmm of another lenses filter threads.

It depends on the 50mm, some are 52 some are 49, some are 40.5 like my el nikkor

So do you want to stack the 50mm on another lens or just reverse it on tubes?

[Lindethiel]

Just reverse it for the moment, and then pick up some tubes later on in the piece. I think I remember reading that all reversing does is give frame-to-frame sharpness & that tubes actually do all the magnification work. Is this true?

If it helps, I have a 49mm glass filter on it at the moment. If I can't find the correct size for the lens, can I just get one that will fit the filter?

[RioRico]

Just reverse it for the moment, and then pick up some tubes later on in the piece. I think I remember reading that all reversing does is give frame-to-frame sharpness & that tubes actually do all the magnification work. Is this true?

True. To be precise: Reversing brings you close. Extension provides magnification. If the lens has a deep front inset, that distance itself provides some extension. More extension, as with tubes, gives more magnification.

If it helps, I have a 49mm glass filter on it at the moment. If I can't find the correct size for the lens, can I just get one that will fit the filter?

With what you've described, 50mm is the focal length of the lens, and 49mm is the front thread diameter. They're measuring different stuff. Forget about the focal length for now. What's important is the thread size.

You will want a PK-49mm mount-reversal adapter. Or, you could get a PK-52mm adapter, and a 49-52mm step ring. Or a PK-58mm adapter (about US$5), and a set of 49-52-55-58mm step rings (about US$10). The step rings will provide a little extension, and the adapter will let you reverse other lenses too. To find these, search eBay for PENTAX REVERS* 58MM and STEP RING* SET -DOWN.

[Nass]

Here is a trick: When you get the tubes, set aside the lens-base section, the piece that clicks into your camera mount. Sand- or file-off the black paint on that section, in the area that covers the camera-mount electrical contacts. Now, when you use your macro setup with the tubes, you'll safely short-out those contacts and thus enable Catch-In-Focus (CIF). Do the same with the mount-reversal ring, for when you use it alone and not the tubes. CIF is very useful when shooting handheld macros.

Quick dumb question from me, no way to get CiF working with tubes AND reversed lens?

Thanks