Old macro 1:1 lenses

[jelow1966]

Originally Posted by jasonholland89

so they do exsist then... cant find any tho. 'reverse ring light holder' didnt find anything either... dunno if it would be difficult making one? or are there otehr companies taht have ever made them.

Just thinking out loud here but I imagine if you had a K-mount to something else converter (I use K-mount on my 4/3rds systems but I'm sure there are other) it might be possible to superglue a step up, step down or spacer to it to provide threads the right diameter. I might have to try that, would be better than the system I have now.

John

[mtngal]

As I recall, Roy took a body lens cap and glued a filter ring on it so that you can mount the reversed lens directly to the camera body. Since I'm no do-it-yourselfer, I went to B&H and bought a reversing ring to mount the 50 reversed in front of another lens. It essentially is a ring with male-to-male screws on each end. I ended up buying a step down reversing ring - 52mm on one end and 49 on the other (my macro lens is 52, my 50 is 49mm). Look at B&H's accessories for macro.

[robar]

you're correct.. but i glued 2 rings together for the 2 lens setup..
here's a pic of the reverse setup and a DIY LED RINGLIGHT..

[jasonholland89]

good idea with the rear lense cap, might try that if i can sort out removing the back of it without breaking the actual ring. got a couple of duplicate step up/down rings too which will come in handy.

also i have every type of ring i need for my pentax lol... reversals for 3 different thraed types, step up and step down from 49 up to 70 something, and everything in between, some coupling rings (eg 52-52mm so the double male threads etc) just nothing for the, technically rear of the lense

and that contraption uve made is rather impressive. how does it sinc up with the camera, or is the lighting perminantly on? also how does it actually stay on? with a rear cap, that uve just built on to?

[robar]

the rear cap has a ring epoxied to it..
this ring light stays on as long as power goes to it. either 3AA or 4AAs.
it's okay but gives a flatter image that i really don't like..

[penolta]

Panagor offered excellent 55mm and 90mm f2.8 1:1 macros in the Pentax thread mount; the same lenses were sold by Elicar and Ricoh. There are two 90mm Panagors on ebay right now at around $250 BIN (and perhaps a third , not properly identified), and one 55mm there on open auction (from England). Less than the Vivitars (because people have forgotten the brands) and every bit as good - the Panagors were highly rated in magazine reviews when they were new. I used the Panagors regularly (and still have them) and had an identical 90mm Ricoh, which was borrowed and never returned.

[RioRico]

A couple weeks ago I won a Macro-Takumar 50/4 1:1 M42 macro for US$50. The body has seen use, the glass is fine, and it's quickly become one of my most-used manual lenses for general photography as well as macros. Yes, I sometimes add tubes for a bit more magnification. But like my US$3 M42 Vivitar (Komine) 90M/2.8 lens, good old manual macros are still available and affordable.

There are various tools to shoot macro without using dedicated (expensive) macro lenses. Standard lenses (from any maker) on tubes or bellows, straight or reversed; standard lenses reverse-stacked for great magnification; inexpensive (and excellent) enlarger lenses on tubes or bellows; etc. A good macro setup needn't be expensive.

Bellows and tubes and mount- and thread-reversal free you from specific lens mounts. Cheap non-M42 tubes often come as modular sets, with front and rear camera-specific mounts threaded onto generic tube sections. Buy a couple sets for different mounts, and you can build mount adapters cheap and easy. No infinity focus -- but you're using these for macros, right? And any lens can be reversed, and the camera doesn't know or care what make it is, what mount it sports. I *knew* that US$9 Canon FD 24/2.8 could be put to some good use!!

Google for CHEAP MACRO and see what comes up, eh?