My 'new' UberMacro rig (Caution: Nikon Porn!!!!!)

[Ernicus]

I think I just came in my pants.


Thanks.

 

[480sparky]

Strike-On-Box match head:

 

[480sparky]

Nice!!*

Out of interest what happens to the magnification if you reverse the lens as opposed to mounting it normally to the bellows? I'm assuming the reversing increases the magnification, but by what factor are you gaining over mounting it straight to the bellows as normal?



*ps - now you've even more of an excuse to hunt down a junior geared head

With the 28mm I bought just for this purpose, the numbers Nikon publishes are this:

In 'normal' mounting, 1.7 to 3.7:1
In 'reverse' mount, 3.2 to 7.7:1

 

[Ernicus]

Well, use your new toy and make a "whatsit" thread for thursday. I miss that game.

 

[480sparky]

Well, use your new toy and make a "whatsit" thread for thursday. I miss that game.

As sm4him has already told me, no one may be able to guess it.

So I'm thinking of a self-imposed mag ratio limit.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I was just gonna say, the whatsit's just got extremely difficult!

 

[mjhoward]

Nice!!*

Out of interest what happens to the magnification if you reverse the lens as opposed to mounting it normally to the bellows? I'm assuming the reversing increases the magnification, but by what factor are you gaining over mounting it straight to the bellows as normal?



*ps - now you've even more of an excuse to hunt down a junior geared head

With the 28mm I bought just for this purpose, the numbers Nikon publishes are this:

In 'normal' mounting, 1.7 to 3.7:1
In 'reverse' mount, 3.2 to 7.7:1

Where are you seeing this Sparky? It should be quite a bit higher than that, I think, in both cases. For normal mounting, I thought the calculation was built in lens magnification which for the 28 2.8 is 0.266:1 + 209mm/28mm = 7.73:1

For reverse mount, I'm not 100% sure how it works with extension, but with no extension the rough calculation is 50/f, so for 28mm it would be ~1.8:1. I dont know if you add to that the 209mm/28mm for max extension to get the total magnification or not. You can always do the ruler test and see how many mm fills up the frame and compare that with the size of the sensor.

 

[Skaperen]

That's the bellows I used to have. But I reversed a 20mm on the front AND extended the bellows even more with the PK-11, PK-12, and PK-13 extension rings. So I had even more mag.

I still have all the parts except the bellows. The bellows material dried up and crumbled to pieces. It was 10 years old at the time.

 

[480sparky]

Where are you seeing this Sparky? ........

Nikon's own literature.

Keep in mind, the 28mm is reversed.

 

[480sparky]

That's the bellows I used to have. But I reversed a 20mm on the front AND extended the bellows even more with the PK-11, PK-12, and PK-13 extension rings. So I had even more mag.

I still have all the parts except the bellows. The bellows material dried up and crumbled to pieces. It was 10 years old at the time.

I could add another 68mm of extension with my tube set.

 

[mjhoward]

Where are you seeing this Sparky? ........

Nikon's own literature.

Keep in mind, the 28mm is reversed.

Do you have a link? I know you're using it reversed. My point is that I think the magnification is HIGHER simply because the magnification when mounted normal is, I think, higher than what you've quoted by a lot.

EDIT: Maybe normal mounting the focus plane is behind the front element of the lens/sensor?? Thats the only explanation I can think of.

 

[480sparky]

IC solder connections on a PC board:

 

[480sparky]

Do you have a link? I know you're using it reversed. M........

Will the actual manual work? Scroll down to page 19/20.

 

[snowbear]

Great - something else to drool over.
:thumbup:

 

[mjhoward]

Do you have a link? I know you're using it reversed. M........

Will the actual manual work? Scroll down to page 19/20.

Perfect! Thanks Sparky. As I suspected in my original edit, the focus plane goes behind the front element (working distance goes to 0).

Where are you seeing this Sparky? ........

Nikon's own literature.

Keep in mind, the 28mm is reversed.

Do you have a link? I know you're using it reversed. My point is that I think the magnification is HIGHER simply because the magnification when mounted normal is, I think, higher than what you've quoted by a lot.

EDIT: Maybe normal mounting the focus plane is behind the front element of the lens/sensor?? Thats the only explanation I can think of.