Macro test shots - wierd combinations....

[ccallana]

So I was a bit bored, decided to play with some combinations of 50mm, 28mm, 135mm, extension tubes and a 2xTC to see what kind of macro magnification I could get. My shots are in this set here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisca...7603407935780/

I apologize for the blurry shots - the reversed lens shots were done by hand holding the lens in front of the mounted lens (need to get some rings!!)

Some interesting combos came about -

Reversing a 50mm on a 50mm on my tubes, gave me a 2:1 macro - but the subject was basically on the rear element of the reversed lens!

With the 135mm on the tubes I got a 1:2 macro at about 15". by inserting the 2xTC on the body end, I kept the same 15", but it moved to a 1:1 macro. If I put the 2xTC between the lens and the tubes, it stayed a 1:2, but I had to move back to 36" or so.

Turns out I don't get quite 1:1 with the 50mm on the tubes, its just under. But reversing a 50mm on a 50mm gets 1:1.

I was able to get approximately 5:1 by putting a reversed 28mm on a 50mm on tubes on the 2xTC with a work distance of about 1 inch!

All in all, a fun experiment...

[NonEntity1]

Interesting experiment ccallana, thanks for sharing the results. I had an interest in macro photography from the beginning. I tried diopters and extension tubes briefly but quickly decided I needed a macro lens.

Tim

[robar]

how are you getting your magnification ratios??
with just a 50mm reversed i'm showing just under 1:1 mag.
that's with the lens mounted on my DIY reversing mount that places the lens about 19mm from the camera body.
i don't know the math but the easiest way to really find the mag. is to shoot a MM ruler.. a 1:1 ratio is attained when you have 23mm of the ruler in the shot. a 2:1(twice real life) is when you have only 12-13 mm in the shot.. with a 28mm i'm showing right around 11-13mm or around a 2:1 mag.
i haven't tried me 135mm but have used the 105mm macro not reversed with 63mm ETs and a 2x converter for some where around 3-4:1. that combo is certainly not good for the cam as the whole rig is about a foot long putting way too much weight on the mount..

roy

[robar]

NonEntity1 wrote:

Interesting experiment ccallana, thanks for sharing the results. I had an interest in macro photography from the beginning. I tried diopters and extension tubes briefly but quickly decided I needed a macro lens.

Tim

tim,
i've gotten great results with ETs and a 50.. as good as my macro.

[robar]

OOPS!!!

looks like i should have looked at your link before wasting all that time replying..

roy

[ccallana]

I'm guessing the OOPs is that you went to look at the pics

Precisely why I shot a ruler - to easily tell how much I was getting... I think my math was right, but of course, I've been known to make some mistakes in the past.... If you see something not quite right, let me know.

[bigdawg]

1:1 or 5:1 doesn't really matter....How do you like them??? This is the yard stick to go by....I've seen 1:1 macros that Pure Dee Ole Suck and 1:4 macros that shine....What do you like and how pleasing to the eye are they?? That is the ruler you use!

Dawg

[ccallana]

Certainly, its the end result that matters - what I was trying to gather is what the various combinations do - that way when I say "hmm, this table salt is sure interesting, I wonder what a picture of it would look like?" - I know what combo to grab