I've read about people reversing a (50mm ?) lens and holding it in front of the camera and lens to get close-up. I've also seen a page about a tilt shift mod made out of a pair of adapters, corrugated rubber pipe, and set of long thin bolts that's similar in principle to a Lens Baby.
I've got nothing against home made stuff like this. People from an earlier generation used to do that sort of thing quite often. It was also the way I was brought up and I used to do stuff like that when I was a kid. They're not as fashionable as they used to be but children's books, comics, and annuals used to be full of things like this. Without it a lot of the finished (and expensive) goods we take for granted today wouldn't exist.
I'll admit my Canon A590 isn't the greatest camera. I've spent a lot of time taking a closer look at it and playing with CHDK raw, and its too small sensor, soft lens, and JPEG processing could be bettered. But, I've learned a lot about camera systems in the process and apart from that it's still a great camera to learn the basics of photography.
Ra...@webtv.net wrote: > I saved this long ago, (deleting now) and was just re-reading it.
> I wouldn't do this to any lens! Have any of you done similar?
Yes :-)
I've destroyed several lenses playing like that, it's not only fun but educational. I like your observations about flare from the metallic interior to the extension tube and it could actually be an interesting way to accomplish a certain ethereal look.
The concept is fine, but that particular is a poor example. The idea behind it can be used to produce some seriously high quality optics at very low cost, but it need not be a piece of junk.
Consider that a huge variety of 90 and 105mm macro lenses have been made in all number of different camera mounts. The 105mm in particular is a "sweet spot" for optical design, and virtually every one of them ever sold was a relatively "good" lense! The older lenses made for mounts such as the Nikon, that can be used on modern cameras, are becoming a cult item and the prices are going up; but those made for mounts that have been abandoned are often very inexpensive.
Another source for excellent macro lenses are the now dime a dozen 50 to 150mm enlarging lenses. Not all of them are good quality, so knowing which is which makes a difference. El Nikkor, Wollensak, most Rodenstock, and others are great lenses.
Another lense option would be achromatic microscope objectives. These generally will be better for greater than 1:1 magnification, and probably will work best with smaller than "full frame" sized sensors (due to lack of coverage for larger sizes).
The trick is to mount these lenses to a modern camera is some useful way. The only part of the cited URL worth remembering is the use of modified caps for the camera body. Otherwise, T-mount adapters of various kinds, step-up and step-down and reverse adapters are all useful and inexpensive.
For macro work it matters not if infinity focus ability is lost, and hence using extension tubes or a bellows can be useful to get the desired magnification. And since various adapters are required in any case there is no need to stick with a bellows that matches the camera mount. It's a matter of which adapters can be found for both ends of the bellows! An old bellows with T-mounts on both ends (Vivitar, for example) is probably the most likely to be useful, but Pentax screw mount and Nikon bayonet mount are also useful because of the large variety of adapters that are available.
Finding adapters of course can be an art too! EBay is one source. I've bought a lot of that type of thing from fotodiox.com and have always been pleased.
> The concept is fine, but that particular is a poor > example. The idea behind it can be used to produce some > seriously high quality optics at very low cost, but it > need not be a piece of junk.
> Consider that a huge variety of 90 and 105mm macro > lenses have been made in all number of different camera > mounts. The 105mm in particular is a "sweet spot" for > optical design, and virtually every one of them ever > sold was a relatively "good" lense! The older lenses > made for mounts such as the Nikon, that can be used on > modern cameras, are becoming a cult item and the prices > are going up; but those made for mounts that have been > abandoned are often very inexpensive.
> Another source for excellent macro lenses are the now > dime a dozen 50 to 150mm enlarging lenses. Not all of > them are good quality, so knowing which is which makes a > difference. El Nikkor, Wollensak, most Rodenstock, and > others are great lenses.
> Another lense option would be achromatic microscope > objectives. These generally will be better for greater > than 1:1 magnification, and probably will work best with > smaller than "full frame" sized sensors (due to lack of > coverage for larger sizes).
> The trick is to mount these lenses to a modern camera is > some useful way. The only part of the cited URL worth > remembering is the use of modified caps for the camera > body. Otherwise, T-mount adapters of various kinds, > step-up and step-down and reverse adapters are all > useful and inexpensive.
> For macro work it matters not if infinity focus ability > is lost, and hence using extension tubes or a bellows > can be useful to get the desired magnification. And > since various adapters are required in any case there is > no need to stick with a bellows that matches the camera > mount. It's a matter of which adapters can be found for > both ends of the bellows! An old bellows with T-mounts > on both ends (Vivitar, for example) is probably the most > likely to be useful, but Pentax screw mount and Nikon > bayonet mount are also useful because of the large > variety of adapters that are available.
> Finding adapters of course can be an art too! EBay is > one source. I've bought a lot of that type of thing > from fotodiox.com and have always been pleased.
I can remember "back in the day", you could in fact buy reverse lens mounts for most SLR's for the express purpose of shooting macro. That was before there mfr's started building "macro lenses". I doubt that you'd be able to find such a mount nowadays. Bob Hillerby Combat Photographer B 1/9th Cav, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) Republic of Vietnam 1966-1967
In article <bfcdd773-4f04-4270-9d09-00a085e1c...@t33g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Combat Photographer 1966-1967 <bobh_76...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I can remember "back in the day", you could in fact buy reverse lens > mounts for most SLR's for the express purpose of shooting macro. That > was before there mfr's started building "macro lenses". I doubt that > you'd be able to find such a mount nowadays.
reversing rings are easy to find and quite common.
> The concept is fine, but that particular is a poor > example. The idea behind it can be used to produce some > seriously high quality optics at very low cost, but it > need not be a piece of junk.
> Consider that a huge variety of 90 and 105mm macro > lenses have been made in all number of different camera > mounts. The 105mm in particular is a "sweet spot" for > optical design, and virtually every one of them ever > sold was a relatively "good" lense! The older lenses > made for mounts such as the Nikon, that can be used on > modern cameras, are becoming a cult item and the prices > are going up; but those made for mounts that have been > abandoned are often very inexpensive.
> Another source for excellent macro lenses are the now > dime a dozen 50 to 150mm enlarging lenses. Not all of > them are good quality, so knowing which is which makes a > difference. El Nikkor, Wollensak, most Rodenstock, and > others are great lenses.
> Another lense option would be achromatic microscope > objectives. These generally will be better for greater > than 1:1 magnification, and probably will work best with > smaller than "full frame" sized sensors (due to lack of > coverage for larger sizes).
> The trick is to mount these lenses to a modern camera is > some useful way. The only part of the cited URL worth > remembering is the use of modified caps for the camera > body. Otherwise, T-mount adapters of various kinds, > step-up and step-down and reverse adapters are all > useful and inexpensive.
> For macro work it matters not if infinity focus ability > is lost, and hence using extension tubes or a bellows > can be useful to get the desired magnification. And > since various adapters are required in any case there is > no need to stick with a bellows that matches the camera > mount. It's a matter of which adapters can be found for > both ends of the bellows! An old bellows with T-mounts > on both ends (Vivitar, for example) is probably the most > likely to be useful, but Pentax screw mount and Nikon > bayonet mount are also useful because of the large > variety of adapters that are available.
> Finding adapters of course can be an art too! EBay is > one source. I've bought a lot of that type of thing > from fotodiox.com and have always been pleased.
I can remember "back in the day", you could in fact buy reverse lens mounts for most SLR's for the express purpose of shooting macro. That was before there mfr's started building "macro lenses". I doubt that you'd be able to find such a mount nowadays.
>> The concept is fine, but that particular is a poor >> example. The idea behind it can be used to produce some >> seriously high quality optics at very low cost, but it >> need not be a piece of junk.
>> Consider that a huge variety of 90 and 105mm macro >> lenses have been made in all number of different camera >> mounts. The 105mm in particular is a "sweet spot" for >> optical design, and virtually every one of them ever >> sold was a relatively "good" lense! The older lenses >> made for mounts such as the Nikon, that can be used on >> modern cameras, are becoming a cult item and the prices >> are going up; but those made for mounts that have been >> abandoned are often very inexpensive.
>> Another source for excellent macro lenses are the now >> dime a dozen 50 to 150mm enlarging lenses. Not all of >> them are good quality, so knowing which is which makes a >> difference. El Nikkor, Wollensak, most Rodenstock, and >> others are great lenses.
>> Another lense option would be achromatic microscope >> objectives. These generally will be better for greater >> than 1:1 magnification, and probably will work best with >> smaller than "full frame" sized sensors (due to lack of >> coverage for larger sizes).
>> The trick is to mount these lenses to a modern camera is >> some useful way. The only part of the cited URL worth >> remembering is the use of modified caps for the camera >> body. Otherwise, T-mount adapters of various kinds, >> step-up and step-down and reverse adapters are all >> useful and inexpensive.
>> For macro work it matters not if infinity focus ability >> is lost, and hence using extension tubes or a bellows >> can be useful to get the desired magnification. And >> since various adapters are required in any case there is >> no need to stick with a bellows that matches the camera >> mount. It's a matter of which adapters can be found for >> both ends of the bellows! An old bellows with T-mounts >> on both ends (Vivitar, for example) is probably the most >> likely to be useful, but Pentax screw mount and Nikon >> bayonet mount are also useful because of the large >> variety of adapters that are available.
>> Finding adapters of course can be an art too! EBay is >> one source. I've bought a lot of that type of thing >> from fotodiox.com and have always been pleased.
> I can remember "back in the day", you could in fact buy reverse lens > mounts for most SLR's for the express purpose of shooting macro. That > was before there mfr's started building "macro lenses". I doubt that > you'd be able to find such a mount nowadays.
There are many ways to get close up, or macro shots. Interesting article. In the interest of clearing up a misconception: It is my understanding that most lens designs are compromises. Lenses that are not specifically designed for close up or macro work are optimized to give their best quality at much longer distances. (some even at infinity.) Yes you can get sometimes satisfactory,to the photographer,) results by reversing a lens, or even mounting a reversed lens on another. Yes, you can get close up glass to mount in front of your lens. In a pinch I use an extension tube because I don't feel comfortable with probably cheap glass. But for the reasons stated above, I prefer to use glass designed for close up work, for close ups. Since macro lenses, as opposed to micro lenses, are designed for flat field work, I don't think a macro lens is best for close ups.
In article <4192-4A51638B-1...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>, Ra...@webtv.net wrote: > I saved this long ago, (deleting now) and was just re-reading it.
> I wouldn't do this to any lens! Have any of you done similar? (its > pretty old)
I don't know why you'd do it with a working lens from your regular kit. Why not go and buy some second-hand 50mm that no longer has use than risk your working gear?
The trick I once used was two Cokin P adaptors, face-to-face, bolted together, then attach a lens to each side (don't remember what focal lengths I used), the whole caboodle then gets attached to the camera, worked great for >1:1 macro... awful lot of vignette though. Still got the negs somewhere, have to dig them out and see what else I shot...
|
