Would You Do this to a Lens?
Ra...@webtv.net
I wouldn't do this to any lens! Have any of you done similar? (its
pretty old)
http://www.photocritic.org/2005/macro-photography-on-a-budget/
Charles E Hardwidge
news:4192-4A51...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net...
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.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Paul Furman
> 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.
> (its pretty old)
>
> http://www.photocritic.org/2005/macro-photography-on-a-budget/
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Floyd L. Davidson
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.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Combat Photographer 1966-1967
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
nospam
<bfcdd773-4f04-4270...@t33g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Combat Photographer 1966-1967 <bobh_...@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.
Richard
"Combat Photographer 1966-1967" <bobh_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bfcdd773-4f04-4270...@t33g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Aha! You are being a bit too defeatist there ;-)
A whole plethora of stuff at the links below. Some fairly reasonable in
price, and some a bit expensive
http://www.srb-griturn.com/close-up-photography-307-c.asp
http://www.speedgraphic.co.uk/prod.asp?i=8499&1=Novoflex+EOS%2DRETRO+Reverse+Adaptor+For+Canon+EOS
Richard
Peter
news:4a520406$0$18246$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
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.
YMMV
--
Peter
Justin C
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...
Justin.
--
Justin C, by the sea.