Reversing a wide angle lens?

[max_ebb]

If I was going to reverse mount a lens for doing macro greater than 1:1, what would typically give better results; a standard length lens for the format (ie: 90mm with 6x7 format), or a wide angle lens (ie: 55mm with 6x7 format)?

 

[Dan Fromm]

It depends on the magnification you want and the extension you can obtain. For given extension the 55 will give more magnification. At the smallest extension you can get, this may be more than you want.

Note that both lenses will have very nearly the same mounting flange-to-subject distance at the same magnification.

Seriously and all kidding and abuse aside, buy a copy of Lester Lefkowitz' book The Manual of Closeup Photography and study it. You'll learn more that way, and more quickly too, than from short answers on a bulletin board. BBS systems are fun, but they're not a good way to learn much rapidly.

 

[Greg_E]

You'll learn more that way, and more quickly too, than from short answers on a bulletin board. BBS systems are fun, but they're not a good way to learn much rapidly.

I'll have to disagree with that because I seem to be able to get a lot of questions answered from various forums and online searches (often without actually asking the question). I also do buy a lot of books too,


As far as the original question goes, it was answered above. If reversing is too much, try some extension tubes or bellows.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Greg, if all one needs is a quick pointer then asking on a BBS isn't too dangerous. But BBSs don't deliver much in the way of depth, and given the questions the OP has already asked I think he needs considerably more than quick pointers.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[max_ebb]

Dan,

Thanks for that info. That answered a large part of what I was asking (as far as more magnification for a given extension length and same flange to subject distance at a given magnification). I've been doing MF macro work with extension tubes since the 80's, but I haven't done anything much more than 1:1, and I haven't reverse mounted any lenses.

I understand how reverse mounting a wide angle lens gives more magnification for a given extension. what I was wondering is if there is a general preference between more extension with a standard lens, or less extension with a wide angle lens, for a given magnification level (say 4-6:1), assuming I have a bellows so that I can get that much magnification with a standard lens (and of course, the lens would be reverse mounted either way).

On a side note, are there any other good online places to find used MF gear besides ebay and KEH (preferably ones that take paypal)? I've been looking for a reverse mount adapter for a while and haven't found one yet. I found a way to improvise until I find one if I have to. I have a collapsible rubber lens shade that fits snuggly over a macro tube (I actually have to stretch it a bit to get it on the tube). In a pinch, I could use it as a reverse mount adapter.

 

[Roger Hicks]

A lot depends on the design of the wide-angle. Most Retrofocus (reverse tele) lenses for SLRs will give markedly inferior results to more-or-less symmetrical or Cooke Triplet-derived 'standard' lenses when reversed. Some are reoputedly unusable but I've not encountered them (not least 'cause I've never tried 'em 'cause I know it's a bad idea).

 

[Sparky]

I understand how reverse mounting a wide angle lens gives more magnification for a given extension. what I was wondering is if there is a general preference between more extension with a standard lens, or less extension with a wide angle lens, for a given magnification level (say 4-6:1), assuming I have a bellows so that I can get that much magnification with a standard lens (and of course, the lens would be reverse mounted either way).

It depends on what sort of perspective you need/want. Most people use wide-angles because they're already in one's kit... and are short enough to easily extend by a few multiples of a given focal length (relatively speaking). But an even better choice would be a really short enlarging lens - like a 25mm, etc... assuming one is doing enough macro work to make it worthwhile.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It depends on what sort of perspective you need/want. Most people use wide-angles because they're already in one's kit... and are short enough to easily extend by a few multiples of a given focal length (relatively speaking). But an even better choice would be a really short enlarging lens - like a 25mm, etc... assuming one is doing enough macro work to make it worthwhile.

Or indeed a prime 16mm or even 8mm cine lens (10-25mm).

 

[Dan Fromm]

Max, thanks for the patience and good humor. If the w/a lens works well at 1:5, it will work equally well reversed 5:1. How close will the w/a you intend to use focus on its own mount? There's a hint. Otherwise, ask the lenses.

How are you planning to adjust magnification? Bellows? Focusing helical? I ask because with a relatively short lens these devices minimum extension can be limiting even with the reversed lens at minimum extension.

Roger, I don't think that lens made to cover 8/8 or S8 or even 16 mm film will cover 6x7 at 5:1.

Max, FWIW from roughly 1:4 to 2:1 I use either a macro lens that works well in that range (100/6.3 Neupolar) or an enlarging lens (105/4.5 Comparon or 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar). Up to about 5:1 the Neupolar or a reversed 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS. All this on 2x3.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I don't think that lens made to cover 8/8 or S8 or even 16 mm film will cover 6x7 at 5:1.

You're almost certainly right: brain fade. Though a lens for 16mm just might do it at 5x magnification.