CI Photocommunity

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Macro reverse ring with Zeiss 50mm Planar

singlo

Active Member
Hi,
Has anyone used the Contax 55mm reverse ring
for Macro photograhy? I am thinking of getting one. I messed around with the
Planar 50mm F1.7 by putting the lens back to front and did notice very close focusing can be
achieved. However focusing can only be done by moving the lens forward and backward which is quite inconvenient, and the magnification is fixed. Obviously I need to stop the lens manually. I have seen some stunningly beautiful photos taken this way by a photographer appeared in current of the National Geographics: she used a reverse ring and a prime lens mounted on an Olympus OMTi-4 to get extreme close up of insects! The image quality is amazingly high considering the fact that she does not even use a macro lens.
 
V

vdipiet

Hello Sing,
I have used various options for Macro photography: 1)Dioptor rings which, like a lens filter screws onto the front of the lens and allows you to get up close; 2) reversal rings; and 3) actual macro lens, in my case the Yashica 100ml which gives 1to2 ratio or half life size. As you likely know, there are other options with macro lenses such as extension bellows etc. I have never used these. With the above three options the depth of field is extremely narrow. I have always found myself having to move the whole outfit, no matter which I used, back and forth to try and get proper focus. Reversal rings and/or Dioptors may be cheaper than an actual lens. If you have plenty of money to splurge and want to indulge yourself the Zeiss 60MM AE is a great lens for macro it is 1 to 1 ratio or life size. It goes for about $600.00 used. In any event good luck. Vincent
 

injectx

Member
Sing,
Your findings are all correct.Few remarks: Wider the lens, larger enlargement.With a 13mm tube, the magnification will be: 2.9X for 25mm lens, 1.0X for 50mm lens.With 60mm extention tube, the enlargement will become 4.7X. Of course the working distance will become very narrow. This is the major reason we a 100mm or 180mm macro lens for insect photography.......
 
O

ou1954

>Posted by LS on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 9:33 am: > >Sing, >Your findings are all correct. Few remarks: Wider the lens, larger >enlargement.With a 13mm tube, the magnification will be: 2.9X for 25mm >lens, 1.0X for 50mm lens. With 60mm extension tube, the enlargement >will become 4.7X. Of course the working distance will become very >narrow. This is the major reason we a 100mm or 180mm macro lens for >insect photography.......

Wouldn't you need to consider that what is really happening is that with any given extension tube length, the shorter the focal length of the lens the ratio of extension tube to focal length is greater, thus causing the greater magnification?

Just wondering whether anyone has compared the depth-of-field for a given image size for a specific lens using an extension tube and using close-up adapter lenses.
 

colin

Well-Known Member
Don, Not sure if I am understanding your question but are you asking for depth of field comparisons using different lenses for a given image size?
If so, I would point out that irrespective of the focal length of the lens, at a specific reproduction ratio(e.g. 1:1 or 1:10,etc) the depth of field is always the same. The "apparent" large depth of field for wide angle lenses is there because of the small reproduction ratio.The reverse holds true for telephoto or long focus lenses.
I apologise if I have misunderstood your question
Colin
 
O

ou1954

>Posted by colin elliott on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 6:18 am: > >Don, Not sure if I am understanding your question but are you asking >for depth of field comparisons using different lenses for a given >image size? >If so, I would point out that irrespective of the focal length of the >lens, at a specific reproduction ratio(e.g. 1:1 or 1:10,etc) the depth >of field is always the same. The "apparent" large depth of field for >wide angle lenses is there because of the small reproduction ratio.The >reverse holds true for telephoto or long focus lenses. >I apologise if I have misunderstood your question >Colin

Depth of field was sort of a secondary question.

My main point is that your statement about shorter focal length lenses providing larger magnificaion was the issue I was addressing. If you use a fixed length extension tube and then install lenses of different focal lengths, the shorter focal lenses will be moved relatively further from the film. (In terms of the ratio of the extension tube length to the lens focal length)

DAW
 

rpnagel

Well-Known Member
Hi, I NEVER got acceptable results with reverse mounted lenses outdoors (flare spot in the middle) and went for true f=100mm Macros finally.
 
Top