Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,206   Posts: 1,531,823   Online: 904
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dayton, OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    33
    Thanks for all the input and the occasional PM folks. The input definitely helps out a lot. I had already considered the KISS principle of using a bellows or a macro lens, but I have almost $0 to put into this and a bellows or macro lens is currently out of reach (unlike a $5 filter/stacking ring). I'm not sure if I'm even going to like doing macro style shots but I'm gonna give it a shot. I don't know if I'll be able to do snowflakes, though. I think I'm going to try mounting a 28mm prime lens onto the front of my 150mm PS lens and see what I get.

    Thanks again and Merry Christmas (again)!

  2. #12
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,620
    If all you have is the 28, try it. But if you don't like it, don't rule out other lenses. As I said, I did not get good results with the 28 on a 150. A 135 format 50 worked OK. If you can find a 67-67mm reversing ring you can try other SQ lenses you have. If you locate some cheap diopter lenses, they will be easiest. Though optical quality will suffer with cheap ones, you can get an idea of what it's like and it will be the lightest, smallest setup. The softness can work to your advantage with flowers, too, giving a smooth, sort of dreamy look to the images.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Oz
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    481
    Using your 150 with a reversed 50 (both at infinity) would give you a 3x magnification (or 3:1):i.e. 3 times life sized on the negative.

    Extending the helicals on either lens would enlarge the image further still, but would also exacerbate any flaws in the prime lens.

    BTW, you would focus by moving/rocking the whole shebang back and forth, not with the focus ring(s). DOF would be very shallow. Focusing distance would be 5cms (two inches): the same as the focl length of the reversed lens

    Good luck, and a Merry Christmas
    Last edited by Galah; 12-23-2010 at 05:21 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Chiron View Post
    I don't know if I'll be able to do snowflakes, though.
    If you are thinking an individual snow crystal, you will need a compound microscope. Bronica never made microscopes.

  5. #15
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Galah View Post

    Extending the helicals on either lens would enlarge the image further still, but would also exacerbate any flaws in the prime lens.

    =
    How will that help with the attached lens? I do it sometimes to shade and protect the rear element a little, but it won't change the relationship of the connected lenses.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin