"IMHO": Getting More With Macro

Hi the easiest way I found was to convert a lens cap (for the body end)as shown in this Pete Ganzel "shows you how"

Works very well for me.

It's worth mentioning that while adding extension tubes is more effective at short focal lengths, adding a close up lens is more effective at longer focal lengths.
I have a Canon 500D +2 dioptre achromat that is very effective on a beercan. Magnification depends on the zoom setting but is about 1:1.5 maximum. This is fine for butterflies and damselflies, the quality is pretty good, and the working distance is far enough away to be able to use the onboard flash.
Here's a recent example, a green hairstreak butterfly using A700, Beercan + Canon 500D.


Edited by eccles - 09 May 2008 at 14:32

Having completed the macro without macro assignment whetted my appetite for macro photography. I did some with diopters, that turned out good only on a very steady tripod, but I'm the sort of person that will normally sneak around with my camera at the ready rather than patiently setting up a tripod. I then reversed a 50/1,7 MD lens and held it to my camera (as I had been dumb enough to buy a reverse ring with the wrong diameter), set the ISO and the speed, and then used my finger to regulate the aperture spring on the end of the lens. This was great for me as I got immediate feedback on the aperture setting just by seeing the amount of light coming through. I was also surprised that the pictures came out so sharp when I managed to move in just right, in spite of everything being hand-held.
There's no composition in the pictures though, beyond "oh dear oh dear, hope it doesn't fly up and sting me!"



Now to my question: what is the difference in reversing a 50mm lens compared with, say a 135mm? Can that be done, and would it mean I could step away from the shifty creatures an inch or two, or is it the oppposite? I'm not about to start jamming AF lenses but thought that if I know how the maths work i could probably buy a manual lens or two quite cheaply for macro work. I collected insects and all sorts of little creatures when I was a child and can't seem to shake my fascination for them (though i hate wasps).

Oh, and thanks for the excellent info so far! Really well explained!

topazlizz wrote: Hmmm, is that wasp a fly?

No, that wasp is a wasp

Would appreciate if someone could tell me if a reversed, say, 135mm is better or worse than a 50mm? Will it focus closer or further away or not at all?
Can't afford a proper macro lens just yet.

topazlizz, in theory a 135mm would give you more working distance and lets you focus on a further away subject.

However, the 50mm is a favorite because it's small and the rear element is big, preventing vignetting. Well my 24mm reversed vignettes. Not sure about the 135mm.

Hi Ken!
Great to see you here! Thanks, the 50mm is treated as it deserves, like a gem. It was invaluable at my youngest daughter's birthday party as I didn't have to mess things up with a flash. To be honest, I'm probably not using it as much as I could as I haven't explored all the possibilities yet, but I love it! It is not the lens I'm hand-holding reversed for macro, though, I'd hate to expose it like that. I have an MD 50mm that I picked up for a song for that.

Thanks, chthoniid and albnok for your replies, it helps to know how these things work.

I haven't started thinking about reversing a lens on another yet, I'd have to learn a bit more before trying that, how to couple them together for a start. Half the time I feel I'm running before I can walk anyway, so sometimes I need to put the brakes on.

I think I probably need to invest in a real macro lens...