• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Lens Reversing (2 Viewers)

alex berryman

Well-known member
Hi All,

I'm looking for a cheap (very cheap) lens that is good for reversing. Of course any make will do as it will be used through the reversing adapter.

Many Thanks

Alex
 
I'm not sure that many photographers on this forum will know what you are looking for - as it is not something that is really possible with autofocus lenses.

I assume that what you need is a 50mm standard non-auto focus prime lens from a film camera (make doesn't matter) that has a filter thread of between 49-55mm, helical focussing and a means of manually stopping down the lens.

Unfortunately I don't have a spare as my film system is still active but I would think that someone must have one lying around if they know what you are trying to do. The manual aperture can often be provided on auto aperture lenses without this feature with a bit of blu-tac locking the aperture actuator in the closed position.

Best of luck with your search as many fine macro shots were made using this technique.
 
Iveljay has some great thoughts there. Lot of folks leave reversed lens at widest apeture and stop down with primary lens attached to body. Lot of nifty fifties out there as Iv's suggest, if something in the F/1.7 apeture range could be found, even better. Have good speed and because of that, your assured of quality glass. Would even have a look at old screw-mounts if available. Old takumars and nikors are the stuff of legend, can be pricey though. Try and look at lens that do not incorporate elect. contacts at mount,they tend to be cheaper, less of a demand but still quality goods. Any of major manufacturer be fine. You'll learn tons just shopping. Inclined to believe you'll find manually focusing far better in all regards for this kind of work. On the other hand, where the heck was live view 30 years ago.
 
Last edited:
There are two ways of using a reversed lens, one is by using a coupling ring onto a lens already mounted on the camera, as described by Bill or by mounting the reversed lens either directly onto the camera (without any other lens) using a reversing ring and/or extention tubes or bellows.

The second way means that there is no way that you can employ autofocus, but you obtain regain most correction from a reversed lens of asymetric correction (which it will be). Focus is by moving the camera. In this case you must stop down using the reversed lens. The SRB link will describe the best way for your reversed lens.

For those interested http://www.insectography.com/how_to_macro/magnification2.html gives a good overview with one of many suppiers in the UK being http://www.srb-griturn.com/reversing-rings-388-c.asp who are an excellent company.

It is a cheap way of obtaining an extreme macro lens though I must admit I havn't done it for a very long time. From memory some lenses were a lot easier to use than others, however I was making my own reversing rings out of scrap lenses etc., which probably didn't help.
 
Last edited:
The manual aperture can often be provided on auto aperture lenses without this feature with a bit of blu-tac locking the aperture actuator in the closed position.

I don't think this is generally a problem (at least not on any of my Pentax lenses, which are all auto aperture). If they are not mounted on a camera they are always at set aperture rather than fully open.

I should also add it's not necessary to stick to fifties. When I used to do this stuff a 28 was considered pretty ideal so anything between that and 70 is probably going to work pretty well. And if you want to get really close lenses in combination is the way, a reversed 28 in front of a 200 worked well for me.
 
Olympus needs some fiddling with to stop down as they are at full aperture off camera, as are M42, Canon vary, Pentax K derivatives are OK as you say, never owned Nikon so can't comment.

Unfortunately I got rid of all my Pentax film kit over a year ago and just retained the older Olympus set up as it is still functioning perfectly. Some of the Pentax lenses would have been ideal.

As you say a wide lens is good, its just that you used to be more likely to bump into standards in car boot sales attached to ancient Prakticas or Zeniths.
 
Olympus needs some fiddling with to stop down as they are at full aperture off camera, as are M42, Canon vary, Pentax K derivatives are OK as you say, never owned Nikon so can't comment.

Unfortunately I got rid of all my Pentax film kit over a year ago and just retained the older Olympus set up as it is still functioning perfectly. Some of the Pentax lenses would have been ideal.

As you say a wide lens is good, its just that you used to be more likely to bump into standards in car boot sales attached to ancient Prakticas or Zeniths.

Sorry to hear you parted with the film stuff Ivs. Quality of Olympus-Zuiko speaks for itself too, another classic. Got rid of my more modern film bodies, kept my manual's though. Life is possible without batteries. While Alex is shopping whats available thought Id pass this along... Lot of old tele-converters might be considered useless or even have damaged glass that owners might be willing to part with. Those pieces can have glass removed and used as extension tubes. Had a 2x given to me that now functions as 26mm extension. Only have to ensure correct mount for body,perhaps apeture coupling.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top