Reverse lens..135mm or two lenses?
correct, you will usually get less (lens dependent)..
with lens-on-camera you're more-or-less stuck with being on top of something...however, if you put extension between the camera and your short primes you will increase WD. For example, my 30mm reversed gives 5cm WD
you have to contend with light loss, diffraction, etc...also higher magnification and greater exposure of miniature flaws in the lens when using extension.
if you want to be 10cm away or 25cm away you'll need a 100mm or > 150mm 1:1 macro respectively.
extension is very cheap on reversed lenses because it only takes an non-chipped m42 adapter for your camera, a £4 set of m42 tubes and a £2 42-xxmm coupling ring
Ok so reversed you dont get more WD as you would non reversed 35 vs 100mm?
Reversing is fun and cheap, but hate being on top of things to get it in focus. Some day i will get a a real macro lens.
Will have to look at using extensions.
If you havent tried it already, try holding your 135 reversed on your camera, i'm pretty sure you wont be able to get focus, the focus will be inside the lens.
my two-lens stacking results havent been good but other examples on the web have been very nice. it's very lens-dependent. That said, 135 is probably too short for much> thn 1:1 with 35 or 50...200mm with a 35 would give ok mag
yes, 135 shouldnt give extra WD when reversed, it should be the other way round
if you want extra WD for your 35 put extension on the camera, that will increase the WD of a reversed short lens.
I am thinking of trying reversing my 135mm f2 or stacking two lenses. What are your thoughts using a long lens vs stacking two lenses. Whats the difference?
I tried 35mm and 50mm will there be any difference using a 135mm other than not having to be so close to the subject.