Reversing 50/1.8 onto 55-250 IS for macro

<p> <br>

 

<p>

<p dir="ltr">Has anyone tried it? If so, what is your general experience? What is the approximate working distance? Any pictures?<br>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">TIA.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

</p>

 

<p>

<p></p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

</p>

 

 

</p>

 

<p>I never tried that particular combination, but I have never failed to have a great time shooting macro with other lens combinations on any camera system I owned. I have even taped a reversed EOS mount 50 f/1.4 lens to the nose of a Vivitar 70-210 FD zoom with fine macro results. If you have both lenses, and a roll of black electrical tape, it will only take about three minutes for you to set up the combo, and shoot some pics. There is absolutely no need to use adapter rings to make it work. Black vinyl tape is the only extra supply needed. Post some pics. I would love to see them.</p>

 

<p> <br>

 

<p dir="ltr">I still do not have them but I'm thinking seriously about it. I'm thinking about the 55-250 IS as my 300/4 IS sits most of the time in the cupboard and will probably soon be sold. And I'm thinking about the reversing the 50/1.8 as it's so cheap and light.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p></p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

<p>Once tried that same focal length (not the same lens as you mentioned) which lets you get more closer than the actual lens can go alone. I could not find it though but I remember macro was impressive. Here is a quick try with a 7D and an old Minolta 50mm 1.8 only.</p>

<p>here it is</p><div></div>

<p>Simon, That's a nice pic. May I ask which was the main lens and what was the approximate working distance?</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p>Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

<p>Yakim,<br>

I have not tried it as I don't have the nifty fifty yet. My 55-250 IS gets me about 1:3 and with my 25mm extenstion tube about 1:2.5. For me, the quality is fine in both forms. I would also be interested in knowing how the 50+55-250 combo produces.<br>

The 55-250 has a 58mm front and the 50 has a 52mm front, so I'm guessing the reversing ring would have to be something like a step-down ring.<br>

Does anyone know which ring would be best for this, as I'm not keen on the sticky residue that electrical tape leaves.?<br>

DS Meador</p>

<p>I was thinking of <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/Male-52mm-58mm-52-58-mm-Macro-Reverse-Ring-reversing_W0QQitemZ280444353148QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLens_Accessories?hash=item414bc93a7c">this</a>.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<p>The one above was taken with a reversed 50mm only<br>

My focal length only goes as far as 105, I don't have a 200mm anymore so I tried my son's sigma 28-300. As you asked for a 200mm focal length, I tried it at 28mm reversed with the front element distant from the body at about 4cm and 4cm from the lens to the subject.<br>

The second was taken at 200mm 4cm distance from the front element to the body and about 20cm distance from lens to subject.<br>

Please note that they were all handheld as I had to hold the lens to the body as I don't have a thread size for the sigma front element.</p>

<div></div>

<p>The other</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>The 55-250 has a 58mm front and the 50 has a 52mm front, so I'm guessing the reversing ring would have to be something like a step-down ring.<br />Does anyone know which ring would be best for this, as I'm not keen on the sticky residue that electrical tape leaves.?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On ebay you get a lot of stepdown rings and the best option is to use a tripod not like me, as I was in a rush. Like the one Yakim linked.</p>

<p>I used a 100-300 with a 50 1.8 several years ago to get this shot<br /><a href=" />I did use a ring simialar to the one shown above. No tripod, but I do strongly recomend one, just flash to freeze motion.<br />Oh yes,, and it was REAL close. I would say about an inch. The detail in the eye is much greater in the original picture.</p>

<p>One inch of working distance? WOW! That's <strong>very</strong> close. How did you persuade him (her?) not to fly away?</p>

<p>Regarding flash and tripod, I have them but I rarely use them. Most of my macro is done hand held.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br /> Yakim.</p>

<p>I took this shot (and others) on a cool morning. Moving slowly it allowed me to get close. I shot at f27 as dof is razor thin so that is why the need of flash.</p>

<p>Cool morning? We don't have many of these. :-(</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<p>I might just point out that for reversal of lenses and other tricks for close-in macro, one should not overlook the much greater ease of using manual lenses instead of a reversed auto-focus/electric auto-diaphragm lens.</p>

<p>For not more than the EF 50mm f/1.8, and probably for less, you can get legendary lenses like the old Nikkor f/2 or the Biotar 58mm f/2 lenses. Use them and you can stop them down, focus manually, and in general control the whole set-up much more easily.</p>

<p>Are they cheaper than the 50/1.8? Don't I need as fast as possible lens? What I understand is that I need it to be as fast as possible. The 50/1.8 seems like a nice compromise between aperture and price.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br /> Yakim.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For not more than the EF 50mm f/1.8, and probably for less, you can get legendary lenses like the old Nikkor f/2</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon had a famous 55mm f/3.5 manual lens</p>

<p>Yes. Typically on eBay, a 50mm MF f/2 lens (especially non-AI) goes for US$20-40. Rarely some naive bidder enthusiast will bid it up higher, just drop out when that happens.</p>

<p>As Simon points out, there are lots of other actual macro lenses for MF cameras that can work well both mounted with an adapter or reversed.</p>

<p>Oh, I have enough true macro lenses. I already have a Canon 60/2.8 and Mamiya 120/4 macro (via Mirex adapter) and the 100/2.8 IS should be in next month. All are 1:1 lenses.</p>

<p>Thing is, I am planing to replace my 300/4 IS with the 55-250 IS in any case. So, I thought, why not add the 50/1.8 and get another super macro setup? Yes, I could add a close-up filter instead but the 50/1.8 is part of a planned lightweight setup (18-55 IS, 55-250 IS, 50/1.8).</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<p>I'm just not sure that the EF 50mm f/1.8 would be the world's best candidate for reversal.</p>

<p>That being said, there is absolutely no excuse for every Canon shooter not to have this lens in the bag. It's cheap, sharp, fast, light, small, and much more rugged than it looks.</p>

<p>I just wanted to add a quick thanks for the link to the step-down ring and the other possible lens ideas too.<br>

DS Meador</p>

<p>Simply reversing a 50mm lens via an reversing adapter will give you approximately 1.1:1. Reverse a 24mm lens and you get 2.6:1. Stacking lenses is not a particularly good idea, especially if one is a zoom. You now have tons of elements, which means more light loss and potentially more flare, more loss of sharpness at the corners and most likely lousy flatness of field. The reason reversing lenses works best for macro is that all lenses are designed to take a large subject and reduce it in size to fit the sensor or film. With macro, you are doing the opposite, you potentially taking a very small object and magnifying it to fit the sensor or film. You can get an aftermarket reversing ring for around $9 on Fleabay.</p>

<p>If you are serious about macro, I would invest in an inexpensive ($35) macro focusing rail on Fleabay, some extension tubes (the screw together ones can be had for barely $10) and a reversing ring. You will now have everything you need to get top quality macro photographs. Something you will not get stacking a normal lens and a zoom. The images included in this thread, in my opinion, are of mediocre to poor quality.</p>

<p>To see what you can do with the right equipment, go to <a href="../photo/10915383">http://www.photo.net/photo/10915383</a> . I took this image using a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor<em> reversed </em>on a Nikon PB-6 bellows. Magnification ratio is a pretty hefty 4.1:1. The sharpness is outstanding, far better than any of the photos here, though the depth of field @ f/16 is barely 0.5mm. The flatness of field is excellent.</p>

<p>I wrote a good primer on the basics of macro-photography and published it to my photography website. You can find it at <a href="http://www.scottmurphyphotography.net/macrophotography.htm">http://www.scottmurphyphotography.net/macrophotography.htm</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm just not sure that the EF 50mm f/1.8 would be the world's best candidate for reversal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Understood, but why do you think that the 50/2 is better for this?</p>

<p>Scott, thank you for your insight but have you read what I wrote above? I already have two macro lenses and a third one is on the way. I also do most of my shooting (macro or other) handheld. That is why a focusing rail is not a good solution for me.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<p>Just for a quick-n-dirty experiment, you can try taping the 50/1.5 to your 55-250. Gaffer tape is probably the tape of choice but other stuff will work as well. Give it a quick try to see if you like the results.</p>