Reverse-Macro Imaging

[John Koerner]

How many of you are into reverse-macro photography?

When I used Canon, they had the MP-E 65mm for greater-than 1:1 macro.

I am trying to learn how to maximize simple, all-manual primes as macro lenses, reversed.

Here are some efforts with the Nikkor AiS 20mm, reversed:

This is natural light.

[John Koerner]

This is with a flash and diffuser.

[jhinkey]

That's pretty cool!

[richardHaw]

i am also a bug lover
unfortunately they are not yet in season now. they will be in a few more days so i am going to put new pictures here!

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

Nice, but ou have to work with rather short object - lens distance.

Why not use a dedicated macro lens??

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Not too found of adding new names for old concepts ... It is immaterial whether one gets beyond life-size 1:1 by reversing a lens or not. In my book, all are photomacrography anyway. Or, the all too often misapplied term 'macro' photography. The term 'reverse-macro' is at best confusing.

Nice crab spider, by the way.

[Frank Fremerey]

The first one is impressive, esp the smooth gradients and the symmetry in the sharp parts complemented by the rose backdrop. Well done!

[Jakov Minić]

Pink spiders look cool.
Can you tell us more about the camera used and how you reversed the 20mm?
Thanks!

[John Koerner]

That's pretty cool!

Thanks

i am also a bug lover
unfortunately they are not yet in season now. they will be in a few more days so i am going to put new pictures here!

Great, please do

Nice, but ou have to work with rather short object - lens distance.

Why not use a dedicated macro lens??

Thanks.

Dedicated macro lenses are only 1:1, these shots were taken at 2:1 (twice as close as a standard macro lens can achieve).

There are no "dedicated lenses" that Nikon has to get this done, except by reversing standard primes, as the title suggests (or using bellows), both of which require extremely-close shooting.

This spider would appear very small if I used a standard macro, as it is about the size of ½ a grain of rice. You could never see any detail with a standard macro lens.

The first one is impressive, esp the smooth gradients and the symmetry in the sharp parts complemented by the rose backdrop. Well done!

I like the first one better as well, it was taken in natural light. (I am a natural light junkie, and prefer it to flash-shooting.)

Thanks,

Pink spiders look cool.
Can you tell us more about the camera used and how you reversed the 20mm?
Thanks!

Sure.

I used a Nikon D810 + Nikon NIKKOR 28mm f/2.8 (reversed with Nikon BR-2A Reversing Ring for 2.1x magnification) on both shots.

I also used a Really Right Stuff TVC-33 Tripod and a Really Right Stuff BH-55 LR Ballhead on both shots for support.

On the first shot, I stacked it using 12 images gained with a Really Right Stuff B150-B Macro Focusing Rail and a Nikon MC-36A Multi-Function Remote Cord (Natural Light, no flash)

On the second shot, I took only 1 image, using a Nikon SB-700 AF Speedlight supported on a Wimberley F-2 Macro Bracket, attached to my camera by way of a Really Right Stuff BD810 L-Bracket. The Wimberly Bracket allows you to use your flash off-camera and position it, and point it down, close to your subject.  I connected my flash to the camera with a Nikon SC-28 TTL Coiled Remote Cord. And finally, I tried to diffuse the harsh light of a bare flash with a Vello FlexFrame Softbox.

Hope this clarifies

Jack

[Jakov Minić]

Jack, you seem to be the Jack of this particular trade as your photos clearly illustrated! 
Thanks a bunch for the detailed explanation!
I am sure it will mean a lot to us who don't know how to create such photos but might want to try

[Bjørn Rørslett]

"There are no "dedicated lenses" that Nikon has to get this done [to arrive at 2:1] , except by reversing standard primes"

You overlook the existence of the Macro-Nikkors. Or stacking lenses. Or using dedicated photomacrographic optics by third parties. Or adapting special lenses such as the Olympus OM range. Or using inexpensive cine lenses. Or enlarger lenses. Or microscope optics. Or relay systems. And so on.

Photomacrography can be played with many cards.

 

[John Koerner]

You overlook the existence of the Macro-Nikkors. Or stacking lenses. Or using dedicated photomacrographic optics by third parties. Or adapting special lenses such as the Olympus OM range. Or using inexpensive cine lenses. Or enlarger lenses. Or microscope optics. Or relay systems. And so on.

I didn't "overlook" them, I said Nikon doesn't have any dedicated macro lenses that achieve 2:1 and they don't.

Most of what you mention are not Nikon solutions, and even the Nikkor microscope optics require extremely-close focusing.

Lens-stacking is not a "dedicated lens," either.

The thrust of the original question was "how close" I had to be ... and "why didn't I just use a dedicated macro lens?"

I explained that Nikon's dedicated macro lenses are only 1:1, which isn't enough.

Canon has a 1x-5x solution lens in the MP-E 65, where Nikon does not.

Nikon's solutions include reverse-ring, or bellows, or (yes) microscope optics. If Nikon has a 2:1 (or greater) dedicated macro lens, then I don't know of it.

Photomacrography can be played with many cards.

True.

I just created a thread to discuss reverse-ring solutions and images, not to imply that "there is no other way" to shoot macro images

Is it possible for you to just enjoy the images, or offer some of your own, and not to try to find fault with everything I say?

Thanks,

Jack

[Bjørn Rørslett]

This is 16X direct capture with a designated lens  for photomacrography The lens is not reversed. It is a Nikkor.

Compound Eye House Fly

[John Koerner]

Jack, you seem to be the Jack of this particular trade as your photos clearly illustrated! 
Thanks a bunch for the detailed explanation!
I am sure it will mean a lot to us who don't know how to create such photos but might want to try

I just enjoy macro images and am still learning myself

I have never tried reverse-ring macro shooting, until recently, and am starting to get the hang of it.

Canon had a great solution for very-close macro images, the MP-E 65mm. This was a very convenient lens to have, as it goes from standard (1:1) all the way up to 5x that, in one lens solution. This is very convenient for field use, whereas most of Nikon's solutions (bellows, microscope optics) require a studio platform and can't really be taken on a hike.

Reverse-rings added to standard primes are fairly-flexible solutions, that can be taken on a hike out in the field.

This is why I am attempting to use these small, manual lenses: their portability and flexibility ... you can take a regular photo (e.g., landscape) ... and then flip the lens over and get a super-close macro shot

Cheers

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Look into the Olympus OM range. They have two very interesting lenses, viz. 20/2 and 38/2.8. both can easily  be adapted to other brands simply by swapping the bayonet mount. The lenses are very compact and produce excellent quality images. Not the cheapest approach, but saves a lot of hassle.

For high magnifications there is no way to avoid extensive lengths of bellows or similar. Doing > 5X under field conditions verges on madness as you hardly can observe your target and the limited field of view and even more minuscule depth of field give no clue to the actual environment anyway.

The 38 mm Olympus is doable up to around 5X with an added extension tube, though. but count on many misses and few keepers.

This is my sample of the 38/2.8 adapted for Nikon. It has a bespoke extension tube (modified from Olympus) with CPU contacts to allow full metering with any Nikon camera. I have also fitted a narrow lens shade to cut off stray light which otherwise is a hassle and easily contaminates image contrast.