Since spending some time on here I have discovered how much I love the outstanding macro photography that is on display here and would love to be able to have a play with it myself.
So my DP looked into how much a macro lens for my Nikon D60 might cost and I nearly fell over when he told me he was looking at one for $1,300. Now being very much an ameteaur thats not something that I could justify right now (would cost more than my camera!).
So I had a quick look around and found that you can get reversing rings for about $20... or I saw a secondhand Nikon macro lens on Ebay for around $400.
So I'm curious, are reversing rings okay? I don't really know much about it and given the price difference I'm wondering if
a) they would actually do what I want them to do?
b) could the cheap versions harm my camera?
c) are they easy to use?
d) anything else I should know? or am I just terribly mixed up?
I've never used a macro lens for my macro photos. I'm still of the belief of simply making what you have work to its fullest potential. My last 8 photos are with a Canon Rebel T2i DSLR with an 18-55mm lens. Prior to that, all photos are point and shoot. Probably not much help with my comment. Just trying to encourage you that you can do wonderful stuff sometimes without all the fancy smancy things and spending loads of $$$. Keep up the good work!
Well... I use my 18-55mm lens and reverse it, but I hold it up to the camera body with my hand. :P Despite that, I think it gives great pictures. :D The major drawback of holding it by hand or using a reversing ring is, of course, the fact that it can't autofocus, so you have to be extra careful with being just the right distance away from your subject. But like I said, the pictures come out just fine so if you're looking for a timely and cost-effective alternative to the ever-so-expensive macro lenses then go with the reversing ring. :) Although I'm not sure about whether or not they harm your camera so I'm hoping other people who have used them before see this topic and comment.
I've used reversing rings and several different macro lenses.
Reversing rings are a cheap way to get macro photos. They'll get you really close to your subject. Here's a example of a photo shot with a reversed 55mm lens. http://www.flickr.com/photos/sudweeks/603866887/
A reversing ring itself will not do any harm to your camera. It does expose your rear element on your lens which could get scratched or could pick up dust then transfer that dust to your sensor when you turn the lens back around. (That won't harm your camera either - but you may need to clean your sensor more often)
Reversing a lens is cheap, but it's not the easiest solution. You will loose Autofocus and your aperture control. You'll have to manually set your aperture wide to get your subject in focus, then stop it down to F8 - F16 so that you can try to get some depth of field back. (it's really hard just to try to focus at F16 because your view finder is so dark)
Metering may also be a problem since the camera can't pull any information from the lens. Depending on the camera it may thow it into a manual exposure mode. (this is true with Nikon, not sure about Canon)
Reversing a lens also gives you limited focusing. You're kinda locked into a small range of magnification. You'll also need to get a lot closer to your subject than you would need to with a real macro, so lighting your subject becomes difficult. I had trouble keeping the camera from casting a shadow on the subject.
Image quality with a reversed lens isn't going to be as good as with a true macro. It wasn't as sharp and I had a lot of chromatic aberration.
But a reversing ring is cheap, a true macro lens is not. I picked up a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di and I love it. They're relativity inexpensive and they're amazingly sharp. Works well as a portrait lens as well.
I havn't practiced much with my reverwsing ring but the one time i did. I found that i couldn't get good quality pictures with it. Though I didn't practice much. Reversing rings also require more light.
Josh thanks to your reply I honestly feel I understand it all a bit better now! I understand it enough to think that my technical skills probably aren't up to being able to use reversing rings yet and $20 is only cheap if you use it hehe!
Michael your photos are simply beautiful and I'm so very encouraged to hear that you shot them with a regular 18-55mm lens!
Teresa I was also amazed to hear that you've achieved good quality photos by simply holding the lens backwards to the camera body - like the reversing rings I think it might be a bit beyond my current skills but given it costs nothing it's at least worth occationally playing with that option :-)
Another thing you may want to look into is just getting a close up filter for the end of your lens. The Canon 500D filter is a popular one, and seems to be pretty good quality. You won't be able to get in as close as you would with a true macro lens, but you'll get in closer than you do now, and it's cheaper than a macro lens.
If you decide to pick up a macro lens, look into the Tamron 60mm f/2 Di II. It can be had for about $450 right now and it produces great images.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Reversing rings are a cheap way to get macro photos. They'll get you really close to your subject. Here's a example of a photo shot with a reversed 55mm lens. http://www.flickr.com/photos/sudweeks/603866887/
A reversing ring itself will not do any harm to your camera. It does expose your rear element on your lens which could get scratched or could pick up dust then transfer that dust to your sensor when you turn the lens back around. (That won't harm your camera either - but you may need to clean your sensor more often)
Reversing a lens is cheap, but it's not the easiest solution. You will loose Autofocus and your aperture control. You'll have to manually set your aperture wide to get your subject in focus, then stop it down to F8 - F16 so that you can try to get some depth of field back. (it's really hard just to try to focus at F16 because your view finder is so dark)
Metering may also be a problem since the camera can't pull any information from the lens. Depending on the camera it may thow it into a manual exposure mode. (this is true with Nikon, not sure about Canon)
Reversing a lens also gives you limited focusing. You're kinda locked into a small range of magnification. You'll also need to get a lot closer to your subject than you would need to with a real macro, so lighting your subject becomes difficult. I had trouble keeping the camera from casting a shadow on the subject.
Image quality with a reversed lens isn't going to be as good as with a true macro. It wasn't as sharp and I had a lot of chromatic aberration.
But a reversing ring is cheap, a true macro lens is not. I picked up a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di and I love it. They're relativity inexpensive and they're amazingly sharp. Works well as a portrait lens as well.
Josh thanks to your reply I honestly feel I understand it all a bit better now! I understand it enough to think that my technical skills probably aren't up to being able to use reversing rings yet and $20 is only cheap if you use it hehe!
Michael your photos are simply beautiful and I'm so very encouraged to hear that you shot them with a regular 18-55mm lens!
Teresa I was also amazed to hear that you've achieved good quality photos by simply holding the lens backwards to the camera body - like the reversing rings I think it might be a bit beyond my current skills but given it costs nothing it's at least worth occationally playing with that option :-)
If you decide to pick up a macro lens, look into the Tamron 60mm f/2 Di II. It can be had for about $450 right now and it produces great images.