Difference in aperture 1
The following illustrations show the difference in aperture (f value) from f/3.5 - f/22.
 Canon EFS 18-55 DIY Macro 18mm f/3.5 |
 Canon EFS 18-55 DIY Macro 18mm f/8.0 |
 Canon EFS 18-55 DIY Macro 18mm f/14 |
 Canon EFS 18-55 DIY Macro 18mm f/22 |
Help us continue our work with a donation
 Forum {beta}Hatch ideas and help others with their ideas. |
11 queries. 0.312 seconds
February 22nd, 2009 at 0:39
Nice guide, but those initial calculations (which you said I shouldn’t hold you to) aren’t quite right. By the same logic, anything I look at that’s really far away should be really bright, because a huge object can fill the same portion of my field of vision as a small object.
Of course, this doesn’t happen, because seeing as you’re further away, your eye ends up getting a lot less light (due to the inverse square law).
Mind you, the overall effect of your calculations is (presumably) true - I’d imagine that turning a camera’s lens around would indeed result in longer exposure times, but probably not as drastically as your calculations show.
Either way, there’s still a huge problem in having to hold a lens still in front of a camera, so your guide was absolutely great
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:13
OR you can do like I did, and just search for “Canon reversing ring” on ebay, and buy a $9 ring that you screw onto the 58mm threads on the front of the lens, and than the front of the lens has standard a standard canon ring..
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:58
Aleksander: Yes you could - but without the electrical connection you can’t change the aperture, so you’ll be stuck on like f/3.5 which isn’t very useful. The main challenge I had for this project was to be able to change the aperture as I pleased when the lens was mounted in reverse.
Well you could also do this little trick to change the aperture (which could break your camera/lens):
Mount the normal lens as normally done.
Change the aperture to like f/11 and press the DOF preview button, then take out the battery of the camera.
Take the lens off and mount it reverse (with the aperture now stuck f/11 position)
February 22nd, 2009 at 14:13
completely speculating here…but if you got a reversing ring, couldn’t you add contacts to it and run a cable to the contacts which are now at the front? haven’t tried to look at all at feasibility, but it could be an easier/more flexible way to reverse lenses while maintaining aperture control.
February 22nd, 2009 at 14:23
eyrieowl: The problem in that would be that you don’t have the necessary connectors on the camera piece (the ring) and you still need to connect the wires to the lens (on the front)
February 22nd, 2009 at 17:14
i don’t think you’re understanding what i’m suggesting: step 1) take reversing ring: it does not have connectors on the ring. granted. so, step 2) drill and modify it to add connectors. now, step 3) take a rear-lens cap. step 4) dremel out the center and step 5) put appropriate connectors on it as well. step 6) run cable from connectors on reversing ring to connectors on rear cap. step 7) put lens in between the ring and cap and step
mount on camera. I find it hard to imagine that this couldn’t be done and made to work. of course, i freely admit i’m being an armchair hacker here, and there may be some insurmountable difficulty. but it *seems* like you could get full control of the lens without modifying the lens at all.
February 22nd, 2009 at 20:46
Or you buy a nikon body and every lens made in the last 50 years will work on it. The 55mm Vivitar Macro lens is great and can be had on ebay for 20USD add the matching 2x teleconverter to it and you have a 110mm macro and ad in the 1.56 crop factor and you get a 160mm macro that will focus at the end of the lens for oh say 50. And the cool part is the focus and the aperture work like they are suppose to.
February 23rd, 2009 at 0:38
eyrieowl: Of course that should work. It’s just the trouble in getting the actual connectors onto the lens cap and the ring that will stop you. I mean, how do you actually go about to facilitate this?
That’s why you’ll probably be easier off by cannibalizing an existing lens to get to the connectors with the right fittings.
Glen: I can only say this… This reminds me about the old PC vs Amiga war back in the 80’s/90’s.
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:32
Scrappy! You could buy a cheap 50mm standard and mount it with a ring converter in front of your zoom.
No damage, low price solution!
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:26
Hi Chris, nice work, i would be interested if you get the electrical connections workingat a distance. I am considering adding being able to control the lens from a PC instead of the camera, then operate the shutter remotely. But i still have the problem of getting at the signals and working out what they are.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:51
I’m with the others here that say you should go find an old, fully-manual lens. I don’t know if this is possible with your current camera. I shoot with a Pentax (I know, not a Nikon or Canon, but I’m just getting started), and found an old Tamron “Adaptall” zoom/macro lens that is fully manual, aperture ring and all (Though with the right Adaptall mount, the Aperture could be chosen automatically). With a 2x teleconverter I can fill the shot with about 0.4 to 0.6 inches of subject from about 3 inches away.
February 23rd, 2009 at 14:19
i have to say that i tried it and it didnt work out too well. the depth of feild sucked
February 24th, 2009 at 9:38
Connectors? Wires? What are you going hook these wires to? 3v lithium cell? It just gets more and more rube goldberged or more like mickey moused. For gods sake use a lens with a manual capability. Most crappy amatuer photographers like uncle jack who swears he can shoot princess’ wedding and the only cost will be walmarts hillbilly express processing fees. Has enough sense to have a bulletproof fully manual 35mm camera that can produce kickass pictures from a bowl of fruit in a dim kitchen to horses crossing the tape for a photo finish. (Film+f/stop+shutter speed) come on people you start drilling and have wires soldered on connectors in a camera is a recipe for disaster. Plus if anyone gets a glimpse of your creation of the making of, they’ll swear you’re either certifiable or wacked out on drugs. Well cause you probably are now stop it!
February 26th, 2009 at 20:00
Give the guy a break.
March 7th, 2009 at 12:46
You can buy a decent set of macro lens adapters on eBay (http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=p0.m38.l1313&_nkw=close-up+lens&_sacat=See-All-Categories) for almost nothing. Image quality is bound to be a little less than the lens itself, but it’s negligible.
Here are a few sample photos taken with a Nikon D40X with a 10x macro adapter mounted on a Sigma 30mm at f/1.4:
http://purefiction.net/tmp/files/DSC_0022.jpg
http://purefiction.net/tmp/files/DSC_9966.jpg
http://purefiction.net/tmp/files/DSC_0004.jpg
http://purefiction.net/tmp/files/DSC_9970.jpg
http://purefiction.net/tmp/files/DSC_9981.jpg
March 9th, 2009 at 1:25
Hi Alex,
I agree and disagree.
Of course a commercial solution is ‘easier’ and ‘cleaner’ but there are two things you miss out on.
1. That’s no fun! Besides not being ‘that fun’ to twist on your purchased solution, it’s not available anytime. The reverse lens thingy is.
2. Compare the zoom factor. I don’t know what you’d get with your 10x macro adapter on an 18mm, but the posted solution here provides 4.5x magnification - on the sensor. That is an object will be 4.5 times larger when reflected on the sensor. That translates to an object of 1/5″ or 5mm filling the frame on an APC size sensor.
Did you take these pictures? DSC_0004.jpg is just great!
Cheers,
Chris