Reading mode: Light Dark

When I reverse a 60mm prime macro lens, I get no magnification?

Go to last post
C

CreeDo

Veteran Member
Messages
1,683
Solutions
2
Reaction score
686
Location
US
I feel like there's some fundamental thing I'm not understanding. I thought any camera lens, if you reverse it, should enlarge whatever you're shooting, allowing you to do extreme closeup macro shots. So I bought a reversing ring for my nicest lens, a Canon 60mm macro lens.

The lens already does nice macro shots, but when I reverse it, there's no difference. My subject doesn't fill the frame any more than it did before. In fact I'd say it fills the frame less.

I've tried both extremes of my zoom, and while I can get the subject nice and sharp... it's just not magnified at all. Is this not possible with this lens? Should I throw away this reversing ring and buy a different one for some other lens?
 
Solution
D
CreeDo said:
CreeDo said:
Doss' answer it correct. The purpose of reversing a prime is to allow closer focusing than that lens would normally allow, which gets you into the macro range. A macro lens such as the 60 mm EF-S already focuses into the macro range. So reversing it will literally do nothing lens isn't already doing frontwards!

If you want greater magnification, then extension tubes (with the lens facing the normal direction) are the best approach; you can get sets that preserve communication of the camera with the lens. The actual focal length of the 60 mm EF-S at 1:1 is about 44 mm, so that is how much extension you would need to add to get to 2:1.

Dave
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
If the lens is still at the same distance from the sensor after you reverse it, the image will be the same size. I can imagine this could be the case with a 60mm lens.

To get more magnification from your 60mm, you need either extension tubes or a bellows. There is no need to reverse the lens until you get to well over life size, say about 2x life size on the sensor. Even then, there will probably not be a big difference.

What you can try with your reversing ring is mounting a wide angle lens in reverse. That will give you a bigger image than the 60mm.
 
LynniePad said:
Usual procedure is to mount the lens (reversed) on another lens.
Click to expand...
I would say this is an unusual procedure. Besides, it results in so much light loss. The usual procedure is to reverse a standard prime lens. Avoid zooms as they cause too much vignetting. The main idea of reversing a prime is as a 'poor man's' macro. But you already have a macro!
LynniePad said:
https://www.dpchallenge.com/tutorial.php?TUTORIAL_ID=40

Extension tubes are the alternate method (not reversed).
Click to expand...
A prime lens reversed on extension tubes is, in fact, a great way to get really close-up. As is mounting your macro straight onto extension tubes.
 
CreeDo said:
I feel like there's some fundamental thing I'm not understanding. I thought any camera lens, if you reverse it, should enlarge whatever you're shooting, allowing you to do extreme closeup macro shots. So I bought a reversing ring for my nicest lens, a Canon 60mm macro lens.

The lens already does nice macro shots, but when I reverse it, there's no difference. My subject doesn't fill the frame any more than it did before. In fact I'd say it fills the frame less.

I've tried both extremes of my zoom, and while I can get the subject nice and sharp... it's just not magnified at all. Is this not possible with this lens? Should I throw away this reversing ring and buy a different one for some other lens?
Click to expand...
Doss' answer it correct. The purpose of reversing a prime is to allow closer focusing than that lens would normally allow, which gets you into the macro range. A macro lens such as the 60 mm EF-S already focuses into the macro range. So reversing it will literally do nothing lens isn't already doing frontwards!

If you want greater magnification, then extension tubes (with the lens facing the normal direction) are the best approach; you can get sets that preserve communication of the camera with the lens. The actual focal length of the 60 mm EF-S at 1:1 is about 44 mm, so that is how much extension you would need to add to get to 2:1.

Dave
 
dsjtecserv said:
Doss' answer it correct. The purpose of reversing a prime is to allow closer focusing than that lens would normally allow, which gets you into the macro range. A macro lens such as the 60 mm EF-S already focuses into the macro range. So reversing it will literally do nothing lens isn't already doing frontwards!

If you want greater magnification, then extension tubes (with the lens facing the normal direction) are the best approach; you can get sets that preserve communication of the camera with the lens. The actual focal length of the 60 mm EF-S at 1:1 is about 44 mm, so that is how much extension you would need to add to get to 2:1.

Dave
Click to expand...
 
CreeDo said:
CreeDo said:
Doss' answer it correct. The purpose of reversing a prime is to allow closer focusing than that lens would normally allow, which gets you into the macro range. A macro lens such as the 60 mm EF-S already focuses into the macro range. So reversing it will literally do nothing lens isn't already doing frontwards!

If you want greater magnification, then extension tubes (with the lens facing the normal direction) are the best approach; you can get sets that preserve communication of the camera with the lens. The actual focal length of the 60 mm EF-S at 1:1 is about 44 mm, so that is how much extension you would need to add to get to 2:1.

Dave
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Solution
CreeDo said:
What I'm not clear on is... my understanding of reversing is your lens normally takes large scenes and shrinks them to fit on your sensor. So doesn't reversing still enlarge them? Ignoring how close a lens can focus, isn't that still happening when I reverse?

Are there literally zero ways a reversed 60 mm macro lens can enlarge more than a forward-facing one? Even with tubes?
Click to expand...
A reversed lens will focus nicely at a distance that equals the normal distance from the lens mount to the sensor. (When the lens is on the camera the normal way round.)

How big the image is at that distance depends on the angle of the lens (a wide angle lens spreads the image out over a wide angle, so it is bigger on the sensor) and on the distance from lens to sensor (extension tubes).

Think of a projector. When you move it further from the screen, the image gets bigger. In macro, the lens is projecting a picture of the object onto the sensor.

People use longish lenses, not reversed, for macro because it is more convenient to have the lens several inches away from the subject. So 55mm to 105mm macro lenses are popular.

The main reason to reverse a lens is to avoid curvature of field. This only matters with flat subjects such as stamps.

Exactly what happens depends on the design of the particular lens. You have to experiment. But generally, extension tubes are much more useful than reversing rings.
 
CreeDo said:
I feel like there's some fundamental thing I'm not understanding. I thought any camera lens, if you reverse it, should enlarge whatever you're shooting, allowing you to do extreme closeup macro shots. So I bought a reversing ring for my nicest lens, a Canon 60mm macro lens.

The lens already does nice macro shots, but when I reverse it, there's no difference. My subject doesn't fill the frame any more than it did before. In fact I'd say it fills the frame less.

I've tried both extremes of my zoom, and while I can get the subject nice and sharp... it's just not magnified at all. Is this not possible with this lens? Should I throw away this reversing ring and buy a different one for some other lens?
Click to expand...
like others have said, to get closer with that lens you will need extension tubes
 
CreeDo said:
CreeDo said:
Doss' answer it correct. The purpose of reversing a prime is to allow closer focusing than that lens would normally allow, which gets you into the macro range. A macro lens such as the 60 mm EF-S already focuses into the macro range. So reversing it will literally do nothing lens isn't already doing frontwards!

If you want greater magnification, then extension tubes (with the lens facing the normal direction) are the best approach; you can get sets that preserve communication of the camera with the lens. The actual focal length of the 60 mm EF-S at 1:1 is about 44 mm, so that is how much extension you would need to add to get to 2:1.

Dave

--
http://www.pbase.com/dsjtecserv
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for this reply, the way you worded it makes it clearer to me.

I did get tubes and they work well, I was just hoping to go a step further. Looks like my reversing ring was a wasted purchase since it doesn't fit my other lenses.

So if I read you right, other lenses could serve as macros except they just can't focus close enough. A macro lens is designed to allow focus very close, when something is just inches from the lens. And with an extension tube, you can focus even closer than that... at the expense of not being able to focus far away.

What I'm not clear on is... my understanding of reversing is your lens normally takes large scenes and shrinks them to fit on your sensor. So doesn't reversing still enlarge them? Ignoring how close a lens can focus, isn't that still happening when I reverse?

Are there literally zero ways a reversed 60 mm macro lens can enlarge more than a forward-facing one? Even with tubes?
Click to expand...
What is your fascination with reversing a lens?

All you do is expose the internals of the lens to dust and dirt.

Yes! Your reversing ring was a wasted purchase, even if it fit every lens you own. Consider it a lesson learned and move on.

There are much better ways like extension tubes to allow macro photography. The extension tubes can be used with lenses other than your 60mm macro.
 
Last edited:
D Cox said:
CreeDo said:
What I'm not clear on is... my understanding of reversing is your lens normally takes large scenes and shrinks them to fit on your sensor. So doesn't reversing still enlarge them? Ignoring how close a lens can focus, isn't that still happening when I reverse?

Are there literally zero ways a reversed 60 mm macro lens can enlarge more than a forward-facing one? Even with tubes?
Click to expand...
A reversed lens will focus nicely at a distance that equals the normal distance from the lens mount to the sensor. (When the lens is on the camera the normal way round.)

How big the image is at that distance depends on the angle of the lens (a wide angle lens spreads the image out over a wide angle, so it is bigger on the sensor) and on the distance from lens to sensor (extension tubes).

Think of a projector. When you move it further from the screen, the image gets bigger. In macro, the lens is projecting a picture of the object onto the sensor.

People use longish lenses, not reversed, for macro because it is more convenient to have the lens several inches away from the subject. So 55mm to 105mm macro lenses are popular.

The main reason to reverse a lens is to avoid curvature of field. This only matters with flat subjects such as stamps.
Click to expand...
And lenses labelled as 'macro' already have a flat field of focus so there is nothing to be gained by reversing the lens.
D Cox said:
Exactly what happens depends on the design of the particular lens. You have to experiment. But generally, extension tubes are much more useful than reversing rings.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I appreciate you clearing that up. I think I get it now. I will not cry over the lost $9, I will invest another $9 in a reversing ring for one of my other lenses.

Would you be willing to suggest which of these 3 I should reverse?

Canon 18-55 kit lens - seems like a safe bet, a million others have sworn by this

Rokinon 14 mm - this should get the most magnification, but it has a permanent lens hood?

Canon 70-200mm telephoto - pretty sure not this one.
 
CreeDo said:
I appreciate you clearing that up. I think I get it now. I will not cry over the lost $9, I will invest another $9 in a reversing ring for one of my other lenses.

Would you be willing to suggest which of these 3 I should reverse?

Canon 18-55 kit lens - seems like a safe bet, a million others have sworn by this

Rokinon 14 mm - this should get the most magnification, but it has a permanent lens hood?

Canon 70-200mm telephoto - pretty sure not this one.
Click to expand...
Don't reverse any of them.

Get a good quality achromatic closeup lens, or some extension tubes. Or both.

The only lenses that are worth reversing are short lenses when used for high magnifications such as 20x life size on the sensor. I use a 12mm lens for this, with a bellows. It is extremely difficult as the depth of field is a small fraction of a millimetre and vibration becomes a major problem. A good copy stand is essential.

My advice is to forget about reversing lenses.
 
D Cox said:
CreeDo said:
I appreciate you clearing that up. I think I get it now. I will not cry over the lost $9, I will invest another $9 in a reversing ring for one of my other lenses.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Why throw good money after bad?
D Cox said:
D Cox said:
Would you be willing to suggest which of these 3 I should reverse?

Canon 18-55 kit lens - seems like a safe bet, a million others have sworn by this

Rokinon 14 mm - this should get the most magnification, but it has a permanent lens hood?

Canon 70-200mm telephoto - pretty sure not this one.
Click to expand...
Don't reverse any of them.

Get a good quality achromatic closeup lens, or some extension tubes. Or both.
Click to expand...
^^^ THIS
D Cox said:
The only lenses that are worth reversing are short lenses when used for high magnifications such as 20x life size on the sensor. I use a 12mm lens for this, with a bellows. It is extremely difficult as the depth of field is a small fraction of a millimetre and vibration becomes a major problem. A good copy stand is essential.

My advice is to forget about reversing lenses.
Click to expand...
^^^ and THIS

You already have a good macro lens!

Reversing lenses isn't better, it's just a budget way to do macro photography when you can't afford a actual macro lens.

If you want more magnification go buy some extension tubes.
 
D Cox said:
CreeDo said:
I appreciate you clearing that up. I think I get it now. I will not cry over the lost $9, I will invest another $9 in a reversing ring for one of my other lenses.

Would you be willing to suggest which of these 3 I should reverse?

Canon 18-55 kit lens - seems like a safe bet, a million others have sworn by this

Rokinon 14 mm - this should get the most magnification, but it has a permanent lens hood?

Canon 70-200mm telephoto - pretty sure not this one.
Click to expand...
Don't reverse any of them.

Get a good quality achromatic closeup lens, or some extension tubes. Or both.

The only lenses that are worth reversing are short lenses when used for high magnifications such as 20x life size on the sensor. I use a 12mm lens for this, with a bellows. It is extremely difficult as the depth of field is a small fraction of a millimetre and vibration becomes a major problem. A good copy stand is essential.

My advice is to forget about reversing lenses.
Click to expand...
Well hell. "Just buy a really good macro lens" never occurred to me ;D

No but seriously, if I had the money, of course I'd just buy a new lens rather than fool with reversing. Maybe even get that bellows. But I was interested in getting extreme magnification for cheap. I did invest in some extension tubes and like them so far.

I just want a shot of those colorful fly eyeballs and it doesn't have to fill the frame and print at 300 dpi. I can get to the point where I see the facets of a bug's eyes with the 60 mm. Right now a bug's head fills up maybe 5% of the frame. Would love to maybe triple that for cheap.
 
CreeDo said:
D Cox said:
CreeDo said:
I appreciate you clearing that up. I think I get it now. I will not cry over the lost $9, I will invest another $9 in a reversing ring for one of my other lenses.

Would you be willing to suggest which of these 3 I should reverse?

Canon 18-55 kit lens - seems like a safe bet, a million others have sworn by this

Rokinon 14 mm - this should get the most magnification, but it has a permanent lens hood?

Canon 70-200mm telephoto - pretty sure not this one.
Click to expand...
Don't reverse any of them.

Get a good quality achromatic closeup lens, or some extension tubes. Or both.

The only lenses that are worth reversing are short lenses when used for high magnifications such as 20x life size on the sensor. I use a 12mm lens for this, with a bellows. It is extremely difficult as the depth of field is a small fraction of a millimetre and vibration becomes a major problem. A good copy stand is essential.

My advice is to forget about reversing lenses.
Click to expand...
Well hell. "Just buy a really good macro lens" never occurred to me ;D

No but seriously, if I had the money, of course I'd just buy a new lens rather than fool with reversing. Maybe even get that bellows. But I was interested in getting extreme magnification for cheap. I did invest in some extension tubes and like them so far.
Click to expand...
This is what he means by a achromatic closeup lens. It's a magnifying filter that goes on the front of the lens (be sure you get the right size for your lens). Between it, your 60mm macro lens, and extension tubes I doubt you'll do better reversing any lens you own.
CreeDo said:
I just want a shot of those colorful fly eyeballs and it doesn't have to fill the frame and print at 300 dpi. I can get to the point where I see the facets of a bug's eyes with the 60 mm. Right now a bug's head fills up maybe 5% of the frame. Would love to maybe triple that for cheap.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ohhh, sorry for the smartass answer, I didn't realize this was just a filter/add-on.

Not a bad price and reviews are overwhelmingly positive. I think I'll give this one a try. Thanks very much for the suggestion.
 
D Cox said:
CreeDo said:
What I'm not clear on is... my understanding of reversing is your lens normally takes large scenes and shrinks them to fit on your sensor. So doesn't reversing still enlarge them? Ignoring how close a lens can focus, isn't that still happening when I reverse?

Are there literally zero ways a reversed 60 mm macro lens can enlarge more than a forward-facing one? Even with tubes?
Click to expand...
A reversed lens will focus nicely at a distance that equals the normal distance from the lens mount to the sensor. (When the lens is on the camera the normal way round.)

How big the image is at that distance depends on the angle of the lens (a wide angle lens spreads the image out over a wide angle, so it is bigger on the sensor) and on the distance from lens to sensor (extension tubes).

Think of a projector. When you move it further from the screen, the image gets bigger. In macro, the lens is projecting a picture of the object onto the sensor.

People use longish lenses, not reversed, for macro because it is more convenient to have the lens several inches away from the subject. So 55mm to 105mm macro lenses are popular.

The main reason to reverse a lens is to avoid curvature of field. This only matters with flat subjects such as stamps.

Exactly what happens depends on the design of the particular lens. You have to experiment. But generally, extension tubes are much more useful than reversing rings.
Click to expand...
Well, since the reversing ring effectively is useless on my 60mm, I *definitely* have gotten more pleasing results with extension tubes :P But I take your point, it sounds like reversing is something I'd only bother with if I'd never bought that 60mm in the first place. And even then, maybe I'd be better off with the tubes and the kit lens @ 55mm, vs. reversing the kit lens @ 18.
 
CreeDo said:
ohhh, sorry for the smartass answer, I didn't realize this was just a filter/add-on.

Not a bad price and reviews are overwhelmingly positive. I think I'll give this one a try. Thanks very much for the suggestion.
Click to expand...
I just read this: The 250D is suited for lenses with a focal length anywhere from 30 to 135mm. The 500D and 500 are geared for lenses with a focal length anywhere from 70 to 300mm.

I linked to the 500D, not the 250D. Be sure you get the right one.

edit:

Here's the right link: Canon 52mm 250D Close-up Lens

The 52mm 250D Close-up Lens from Canon is for quick and easy close-up photography. The close-up lens is screwed on to the front of a lens like a filter. Close-up lens 250D has two achromatic elements to correct chromatic aberrations. It does not degrade the high optical performance of EF lenses.

Compatibility
  • EF 135mm f/2.8 with Softfocus
  • EF 35-80 4.0-5.6 III
  • EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro
  • EF 55-200 4-5.6 USM
  • EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM
  • PowerShot A10*, A20*, A40*, A510, A520, A540, A570 IS, A590 IS, A60, A70, A75, A80, A85, A95
* Requires Conversion Lens Adapter LA-DC52 for attachment to PowerShot A20 & A10. Requires Conversion Lens Adapter LA-DC52B for attachment to PowerShot A30 & A40
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top