=====> Macro Help PLEASE! <=====

[C.S.I.]

HI,

I have a 300D Canon. Just bought a Sigma 105mm 2.8 EX DG. Great lens. BUT ........ Not what I expected. I thought the detail would be greater than what I got (1:1). Ive been snooping around and NOW I see that alot of photogs are using 28mm 2.8's reversed with extension tubes. Should I ditch the Sigma and buy the latter........or can the Sigma be used with the reverse adapter as well (will it be a plus or a minus with a 105mm lens). Which lens' are more desireable for extreme close ups........for that matter what should I get soup to nuts?

Bottom line is Im on a budget, and I see that reverse adapters are in the neighborhood of $330 USD(Novaflex). Should I -

A) Keep the Sigma 105mm and save for the Novaflex reverse adapter
B) return the 105mm, get the Novaflex adapter and a 28mm 2.8 lens

---Will this option even work---
C) Keep the 105mm, add a Canon 500D close up lens, Kenko tubes 12/24/36mm's and Tamron 2X AF (I saw this somewhere on the web, and author CLAIMED excellent results).


THANKS A MILLION PEOPLE!!!!!!
Bill


OH......PS.......

Do I really need the Novaflex adapter or could I get buy with reverse rings/and maybe a 28mm attatched to the 105 with male threads?



Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains. - Winston Churchill

[DaveG]

HI,

I have a 300D Canon. Just bought a Sigma 105mm 2.8 EX DG. Great lens. BUT ........ Not what I expected. I thought the detail would be greater than what I got (1:1). Ive been snooping around and NOW I see that alot of photogs are using 28mm 2.8's reversed with extension tubes. Should I ditch the Sigma and buy the latter........or can the Sigma be used with the reverse adapter as well (will it be a plus or a minus with a 105mm lens). Which lens' are more desireable for extreme close ups........for that matter what should I get soup to nuts?

Bottom line is Im on a budget, and I see that reverse adapters are in the neighborhood of $330 USD(Novaflex). Should I -

A) Keep the Sigma 105mm and save for the Novaflex reverse adapter
B) return the 105mm, get the Novaflex adapter and a 28mm 2.8 lens

---Will this option even work---
C) Keep the 105mm, add a Canon 500D close up lens, Kenko tubes 12/24/36mm's and Tamron 2X AF (I saw this somewhere on the web, and author CLAIMED excellent results).


THANKS A MILLION PEOPLE!!!!!!
Bill


OH......PS.......

Do I really need the Novaflex adapter or could I get buy with reverse rings/and maybe a 28mm attatched to the 105 with male threads?

There's many things going on. First I assume that you want to get more magnification than 1:1 and that's what you mean by greater detail.

There's a number of ways that you can do this and as you've discovered reversing a lens will do it. I suspect that the stuff you've seen with the 28mm lens is the 28 on an extension tubes, but NOT reversed. Greater magnification can be had if you did reverse the lens and then you'd need the reverse adaptor. I would have thought that there would be one much cheaper than what the Novaflex is going for but perhaps not.

But make sure that you choose a lens that lets you control the lens' aperture when it's reversed. Remember that on an EOS camera the body controls the aperture though the lens/body electronic contacts and you'll lose those when you reverse the lens. Shooting macro (beyond 1:1 it's more acurately, but pedantically MICRO not macro), without being able to stop down will not be too useful. An old manual lens may do the trick as well as anything.

You could also continue to use the 100 on a bellows, assuming again that you get some kind of diaphragm control.

A Canon extension tube would help too, just with the 100, and should keep your electronic connections and be fairly cheap. Different lengths of extension tubes determine the magnification

My inclination would be to go the extension tube route. There's no additional glass of dubious character in front of your lens, you keep the aperture control and it should be cheap. Of course if you want serious micro magnification capabilities you will need to go to the lens reversal.

[edsarkiss]

when shooting with a lens reversed, a wide angle lens will yield a higher magnification than a tele.

in other words, reversing a 100 will not let you get as close as reversing a 28 (or 24 or 17...).

if you want to try the reversal thing on an EOS camera, i think the best thing would be to get an older cheap wide angle lens with manual aperture and focus controls. No EF-mount lens that I know of (i don't know them all!) has a "real" aperture ring, so the brand of the lens you buy does not matter from a "fit" perspective since you won't likely be buying an EF mount lens. So get a used, cheap, old Pentax, Nikon, or Canon FD lens and the appropriate adaptor, and give it a whiirl.

when i was in school, i got lots of great micro shots with a 24mm lens reversed on my Pentax K-1000. The reverser ring was just a few dollars at a camera swap meet. You may need to get step-up/down rings so that the reverser can thread into the lens's filter threads.

note that with the lens reversed, focusing capability is basically gone. you must move the camera toward or away from the subject to achieve the proper focus.

btw, what were you shooting with the 105mm macro that you couldn't get close enough to? with my Tamorn 90mm macro, i can fill the frame with a few ants.

[Jon]

First, using the 105 on a reverse adapter like the Novoflex won't give you anything like what the 28 mm will. Wide angle lenses, especially use what's called "retrofocus" design, where the "logical" (f.l.) focal point is behind the rear element. The retrofocus design means that the apparent focal point on a reversed lens will be somewhere in front of the reversed lens, and you'l get all the benefits of a long set of extension tubes on that lens. You'll also, at least theoretically, get the benefit of using the lens as it was designed to be used (greater distance between the "front" of the lens and the "subject" (here the film/sensor) than from the "back" of the lens to the "sensor" (here, the subject), which is the way aberrations were corrected for. A 105 is long enough that it doesn't need to resort to this kind of design measures, so you won't get the great gain you will with a shorter lens.

OTOH, the 105 may do better with extension tubes (but with a longer lens, you need more extension tubes for the same degree of magnification) than a non-macro lens, even unreversed.

You might also consider looking for a bellows and a flat-field macro lens in a suitable mount, possibly an enlarging lens would do. Down beyond 1:1, you're going to need to be all-manual anyway, and good bellows include a focussing rail arrangement as well.

For specific recommendations, though, it'd help to know generally what macro range you want to work at. Obviously, somewere beyond 1:1. I see Adorama says the Novoflex will do 1:27 at 105, and 2.8:1 at 28 with a 28:105 zoom (another design that commonly uses retrofocus). At the 2.8:1 end, it'd be a fair push for the 105 macro.