• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Reverse Adapter for Canon 28-105 f4.0 L IS

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Novoflex Reverse Lens Adapter for Canon EOS cost $369.95. Has anyone any experience with this adapter? It seems a very economical and lightweight addition to one's bag to give considerable macro capability.

However, in practice, does it do the job of dedicated macro lenses? What are the shortcomings?

Asher

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...010&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
"The lens is mounted on the adapter in reverse position, ensuring outstanding quality of the resulting photographs. The adapter transmits all lens information to the camera body. Using a Canon EOS zoom lens with a focal length of 28-105 in reverse position, allows the user to take photographs with magnification ratios of 1:7 at the 105mm end to 2.8:1 at the 28mm setting. No prime macro lens is capable of matching this range. The adapter is supplied with 58mm treads. "
 

Mark Johnston

New member
Novoflex lens adapter

Asher,

I use this adapter sometimes on my Canon 28-70mm f/2.8L and it works great. Since the lens is now hanging off the body via the filter ring, it's a good idea to exercise caution when flinging the camera around, but it's pretty easy to mount and unmount, and with a good lens gives really nice results.

Here's a shot of young female pine cones about 1 cm in height with the 28-70mm and the Novoflex adapter:


0616-_g5z0468.jpg


As I recall, the working distance was pretty short - maybe 5 cm or so.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Thanks Mark!

I like the colors. Where do these grow. I guess you used flash?

What difference are there in practice between shooting macro with the adapter versus using the screw on Canon close up filters or a macro lens. The latter accomodates ring flash of course.

Asher
 

Mark Johnston

New member
Hi, Asher -

The young cones were shot on the Izu Penninsula of Japan, south of Tokyo.

This shot was 1/200th at f/22, so yes there was a lot of flash power involved!

Here's a picture I took with my cell phone camera of the whole rig in place for that shot:


123557668_81.jpg


Obviously, this rig is a lot more to handle than a macro lens with a mounted MR-14 or MT-24! The flex arms and base plate are also from Novaflex.

I do a lot of hand-held macro of insects and flowers with the 180mm f/3.5 which I love, but I've also done some hand-held shooting with the reversed 28-70mm if there's enough light to do it without flash and a tripod.

Another technique I've tried with the rig pictured above is to use a monopod to take the weight off, and then just tilt forward and back until I get the working distance and focus I want. But hand-holding with the flex arms and flash is pretty tough!

Best,

Mark
 
Asher,

Have you considered using a macro coupler and some step up/down rings with a reversed 50mm or such? At less than 10% of the price a little vignetting is not a big deal. And you can get the Canon EF 100/2.8 USM Macro brom B&H for maybe $70 more than the Novoflex adapter. Albeit, you will not get to retain IS with anything but the Novoflex adapter.

Or you could buy the EF 50/2.5 CM for less than the Novoflex Adapter and replace the 50/1.8 in your kit.

That said, I have played with a reversed 50 before and you should realize your working distance from lens to subject is only 3-5 cm or so (back of the lens to sensor plane plus some variation due to focus). So obviously you get more magnification that you would with a standard macro lens. And simply using a macro coupler will retain autofocus (focus is achieved by the primary lens not the reversed lens) to whatever degree it is capable and useful (i.e., manual focus may be a better call at such magnification).

some thoughts, but not a direct answer,

Sean :eek:)
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Thanks Mike,

The two Novoflex arms and base plate look so great! I know my son will immediately "need them" for product photography. What is the things stuck in the ground: a spiked monopod? You could also add an L bracket :)

Is that a Manofotto focusing stage. I use that for panos.


Sean,

Thanks for the points on different Macro options with helpful links. I'll check them out. I have the 50 2.5 Macro already. I love it. I'll start and make mistakes and then see what I need. I have not spent much effort on Macro beyond skin cancers and a few hapless spiders!

My experience is that manual focus is best as otherwise the lens may just jerk around trying to find focus or for its own happiness!

Asher
 

Mark Johnston

New member
Asher Kelman said:
The two Novoflex arms and base plate look so great! I know my son will immediately "need them" for product photography. What is the things stuck in the ground: a spiked monopod? You could also add an L bracket :)

Is that a Manofotto focusing stage. I use that for panos.


[SNIP!]

Asher
Asher -

It only looks stuck in the ground. What you're seeing is the center column of a Gitzo Explorer tripod almost touching the rock the tripod is standing over. I don't use the focusing rail much, but it's occasionally useful. Yeah, Rube Goldberg would be impressed if add an L bracket and a few other bits to this mess!

Mark
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Asher Kelman said:
Now has anyone used a 24-105mm 4 IS adapted for macro?

Asher

Let me add to this, what is the experience with adding a 500D to this or the 70-200 L for macro work.

Asher
 

Johnny_Johnson

New member
Hi Asher,

I've enjoyed using the 70-200/2.8 L IS with the 500D. The image quality, while not up to the standards of a dedicated macro lens, is certainly acceptable for uses such as small print or web images. The big plus for me is the ability to fine tune the composition by using the zoom instead of moving the camera/tripod. Here is an example taken with that combination and a 10D body.

http://home.alltel.net/jjohnso4/star_of_bethlehem.htm

I think I have some notes about the working range of the 70-200 with the 500D. If you're interested I'll look them up.

Later,
Johnny

(I used the "insert link" button on the tool bar but the resulting link sure doesn't look like it'll work.)
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
HI Johnny,

Again I like your images.

How different in quality are the images from the 70-200-500D combination compared to the use of the dedicated 100mm Macro lens? IOW, at what size print would the image be inferior looking at 12" away.

BTW, your image is posted by dragging it to a new browser window then copying the url and pasting that in the drop down window that appears by "mousing" the little mountain icon in the Advanced Edit window.

Voila"

http://home.alltel.net/jjohnso4/Star_of_Bethlehem.jpg

It gets sandwiched between and [IMG] and here you are:


[IMG]http://home.alltel.net/jjohnso4/Star_of_Bethlehem.jpg

Asher
 

Johnny_Johnson

New member
Again I like your images.

And, thanks again!


How different in quality are the images from the 70-200-500D combination compared to the use of the dedicated 100mm Macro lens? IOW, at what size print would the image be inferior looking at 12" away.

I haven't done that type of comparison and don't have the 100mm macro to do so. I do have the Sigma 150mm/2.8 macro though. I'm going to photograph a yellow fringed orchid tomorrow that I noticed this afternoon growing on the road bank in the neighborhood. If you'd like I'll take shots with both lenses and put up crops for you to look at.


BTW, your image is posted by dragging it to a new browser window then copying the url and pasting that in the drop down window that appears by "mousing" the little mountain icon in the Advanced Edit window.

Yeah, but I really wanted to post the web page with the accompanying verbiage. (smile)

Later,
Johnny
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Johnny,

I'm really interested in your results and maybe you could send me RAW pictures to look at on my screen and try to print.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Sean, when using a reversed lens mounted to the front of the telephoto lens, how do you set the front lens and how does this affect the focal distance. Also what would make the optimal front add on reversed lens? Would you do this on a 70-200 2.8L IS? Also how does this compare with using tube.

Asher

Sean DeMerchant said:
Asher,

Have you considered using a macro coupler and some step up/down rings with a reversed 50mm or such? At less than 10% of the price a little vignetting is not a big deal. And you can get the Canon EF 100/2.8 USM Macro brom B&H for maybe $70 more than the Novoflex adapter. Albeit, you will not get to retain IS with anything but the Novoflex adapter.

Or you could buy the EF 50/2.5 CM for less than the Novoflex Adapter and replace the 50/1.8 in your kit.

That said, I have played with a reversed 50 before and you should realize your working distance from lens to subject is only 3-5 cm or so (back of the lens to sensor plane plus some variation due to focus). So obviously you get more magnification that you would with a standard macro lens. And simply using a macro coupler will retain autofocus (focus is achieved by the primary lens not the reversed lens) to whatever degree it is capable and useful (i.e., manual focus may be a better call at such magnification).

some thoughts, but not a direct answer,

Sean :eek:)
 
Asher Kelman said:
Sean, when using a reversed lens mounted to the front of the telephoto lens, how do you set the front lens and how does this affect the focal distance.
I do not set anything, I only mount the lens using a macro coupler and I have only done this using the EF 50/1.4 and moving the focus ringly simply moves the lens mount while the glass remains fixed in place. Although there may be inner motion I cannot see with the naked eye. Beyond that, the lens is wide open when reverse mounted.

With a manual lens I would simply set it wide open. What you are using it for here is basically a very high power dioptric correction filter. With the reversed lens you have the focal plane set at essentially the lens to sensor distance with your primary lens shifting that slightly. Consider the following huge example image that illustrates the magnification achieved using a reversed 50 mm on a 100 mm.

At 1:1 an APS-C sensor yields roughly 18 strands of nylon from the weave.

At infinity focus with reversed 50 mm mounted on it the image is roughly 9.5 strands wide which is something like 1:1.9 or so magnification. This is the maximum focal distance achieved.

At 1:1 focus I get 6.5 strands across the frame which is getting close to 1:3 magnfication.


Using%20Reversed%20Lenses.jpg


Asher Kelman said:
Also what would make the optimal front add on reversed lens? Would you do this on a 70-200 2.8L IS?

The one you have with the widest aperture if you wish to avoid vignetting.

My understanding is that magnification is essentially the focal length of your primary lens divided by the focal length of your reversed lens. This coincides with my quick test results above with focussing providing some variation. I should note I did this with a macro lens as the primary so signficant variation if focus was used.

Hence, with the zoom you would have some control over magnification. But you may also have some vignetting problems. The EF 50/1.4 on the EF 100/2.8 did not vignette at all (the vignetting I noted above was blocking the flash from lighting the subject. I could have used off camera flash, but in truth I did not care about the shot beyond measuring magnification.

Considering weight I would suggest not using autofocus as it could stress the motor and damage it.

Also, the largest macro coupler B&H has the last I checked was a 58 mm so I would use a smaller lens if you have one. This is simply a way to take two lenses and less than $20 USD after shipping as get into extreme macro.

Asher Kelman said:
Also how does this compare with using tube.

I wish I new. I would expect better image quality from using extension tubes as they contain no glass.

enjoy,

Sean
 

Johnny_Johnson

New member
Asher Kelman said:
Johnny,

I'm really interested in your results and maybe you could send me RAW pictures to look at on my screen and try to print.

Asher

Hi Asher,

I didn't make it to the wildflower today but I did set up something in the basement that should illustrate the differences even better between the 150mm Sigma macro and the 70-200mm/2.8 IS L with the 500D lens. The Sigma is one of the newer units (APO Macro DG HSM) which is rated pretty highly by some. Here's a downsized version of the 70-200/2.8/500D image:

5D%2020060904-0008.jpg



And here is the Sigma version:

5D%2020060904-0005.jpg


I don't think that there's a very large difference in the two images at these reduced sizes. But, there's no contest when the full size images are viewed at 25% and up on the screen. The Sigma is far ahead in showing the detail of the hackle feather in the upper right corner and in the chenille in the lower left.

Asher, the RAW files are available if you'd like to look at them. Just send me the info to FTP them to you.

Later,
Johnny
 
Top