cheap macro

pulsar123 wrote in post #16668992
What other lenses do you have? And which MF lenses do you have?

I have a 35 f2, 85f1.8 and17-55.
The old mf lenses are 28, 50 and135.
I could reverse 35 on 85, this is another good isea, thank you

silma wrote in post #16669798
I have a 35 f2, 85f1.8 and17-55.
The old mf lenses are 28, 50 and135.
I could reverse 35 on 85, this is another good isea, thank you

No, don't use AF lenses in the reversed position - you won't be able to change the aperture. Try reversed 50 and/or 28 on top of your 85mm lens - this should work well.

pulsar123 wrote in post #16670592
No, don't use AF lenses in the reversed position - you won't be able to change the aperture. Try reversed 50 and/or 28 on top of your 85mm lens - this should work well.

They are manual lenses, both focusing and aperture. I missed that too, but read the first post.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16670635
They are manual lenses, both focusing and aperture. I missed that too, but read the first post.

the 28, and 50 are...but the 35f2 isn't

Ah, so confusing. I think tubes would be the best way to do this, just forget about reversing rings to the body, then reversing rings from filter to filter of lenses, etc. Too many "legos" to put together.

The 18-55 kit lens actually does a pretty decent job for macro-ish shots.

Some good reads:

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=14332166#po​st14332166
http://forum.manualfoc​us.org/viewtopic.php?i​d=16829
http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/96084​3

Another option would be to use legacy Nikkor glass with a Canon-Nikkor adapter. There are a lot of available accessories and macro lenses, e.g. Micro Nikkors, extension tubes, bellows, slide copy adapters, etc.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16670843
Ah, so confusing. I think tubes would be the best way to do this, just forget about reversing rings to the body, then reversing rings from filter to filter of lenses, etc. Too many "legos" to put together.

The 18-55 kit lens actually does a pretty decent job for macro-ish shots.

Some good reads:

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=14332166#po​st14332166
http://forum.manualfoc​us.org/viewtopic.php?i​d=16829
http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/96084​3

i agree that tubes are far easier than using a reversed lens onto another lens...however i'm not sure how ease of use for them compares to the raynox that was mentioned earlier...

for my money, i'd get the tubes...another benefit is that you can experiment with them on every lens you own

EF 50mm f/1.8 II and the extension tubes

https://photography-on-the.net …?p=14961579&pos​tcount=303

with 100L and tubes + x1.4 extender
https://photography-on-the.net …?p=15035720&pos​tcount=400

the cheap way is using the EF 50mm f/1.8 II with tubes

You can get much higher zoom with a reversed lens (compared to tubes).

thanks everybody for your ideas, all of them have good points and are really intriguing.
What I really would like to have is a very basic way to try some macro stuff, as I said before I'm not a macro person (yet); if macro really gets me I'd buy a dedicated macro lens and wouldn't rely on cheap solutions that have big drawbacks, you get what you pay for, isn't it?
Anyway today I tried reversing my 35mm. I had to stop it down to f11 and remove the lens with camera on while pressing the DOF button (don't know if this is safe for camera and lens...). handheld the lens AND the camera and moved it trying to guess focus, flash was bounced to keep shutter speed down to a safe value. Here is the result, no pp apart from WB:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/lucasano/123794​29974/

Looks ok. But why bothering with 35mm EF lens, if you have MF lenses? Use them instead.

pulsar123 wrote in post #16673135
Looks ok. But why bothering with 35mm EF lens, if you have MF lenses? Use them instead.

Yes, of course.
I don't have them here at the moment