I have reversed several lenses, my favorites so far being the 14-45 and the
40-150.
Depth is crap at 14 mm reverses but you can see the composition of a thread,
you just start getting DOF at 45 mm, 70-100 is better.
I'm still experimenting, here are some results, if you look for the close up
pics.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55838750@N00/page2/
This page has the most recent pics, the Lichens folder has my earliest
attempts.
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Allen Coltrin
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 6:20 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: Bellows
There were several threads on the yahoo group. I believe Scott was a large
part of those.
Allen
----Original Message Follows----
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reversing the lens may be desirable when the distance to the subject is
less than the distance to the sensor. It has to do with the way lenses
are designed which expects the object distance from the front of the
lens to be greater than the image distance behind the lens. In close-up
photography these normal object/image distance relationships may get
reversed... ergo reverse the lens to compensate unless it's a special
macro lens to begin with.
If you get serious about this stuff this is a book you should own:
<http://www.amazon.com/John-Shaws-Closeups-Nature-Shaw/dp/0817440526/ref=pd_
bbs_sr_1/103-3192476-2323027?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173145846&sr=8-1>
Shaw uses Nikon gear but the principles are the same and the gear is
similar.
Chuck Norcutt
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|