Does anyone know if this can be done?

[Edsport]

The ring is goes between camera and lens yes. The purpose is to move the lens away from the camera which allows it to focus closer to an object. If your lens has a 1 foot minimum focusing distance, using a ring will let you put the lens alot closer to the object and still get focus. I use a 12mm ring but i have to be real close to the object, i wish i had a 25mm to go with my 12 so i could move the camera further away but still have the magnification...

 

[Ron Evers]

Edsport

I use a 12mm ring but i have to be real close to the object, i wish i had a 25mm to go with my 12 so i could move the camera further away but still have the magnification...

Methinks you are misinformed Ed. The more rings you add the closer your focusing distance will be & the greater the magnification.

 

[ajkramer87]

Shot with a sigma 105mm macro at 1:1 plus a Raynox 250. No cropping at all.

Overread looks like you need to clean that sensor.

 

[ajkramer87]

Also took one with my canon powershot sx10is zoomed all the way it can with out going into the digital zoom. Also had the raynox 250 attached.

 

[Overread]

Yah sensor cleaning.... gotta put that on my Christmas list

gah and my poor mpe is being beaten out!

 

[Ron Evers]

Also took one with my canon powershot sx10is zoomed all the way it can with out going into the digital zoom. Also had the raynox 250 attached.

Impressive!

I have limited my Raynox 150 to my Canon S5 bridge camera where it was also impressive but I am now wondering what it can achieve on some of my other glass on the Panasonic G1.

 

[Overread]

Ok so I got bored and got curious as well and decided to do a series from 1:1 to 10:1 of a ballpoint pen head (and this time I bothered to remove some of the dust spots too ). Hopefully this should give an idea of where peoples setups are performing with regard to magnification attained - at least as far as ballpoint heads are concerned.

1:1 (what you'd get with a regular true macro lens)
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/IMG_0256.jpg

2:1
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/IMG_0258.jpg

3:1
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/IMG_0261.jpg

4:1
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/IMG_0262.jpg

5:1
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/IMG_0267-1.jpg

10:1 (that is the MPE + 2*Teleconverter)

 

[Ron Evers]

I see that I have some experimenting to do.

 

[Edsport]

Edsport

I use a 12mm ring but i have to be real close to the object, i wish i had a 25mm to go with my 12 so i could move the camera further away but still have the magnification...

Methinks you are misinformed Ed. The more rings you add the closer your focusing distance will be & the greater the magnification.

Yes the greater magnification so i don't have to be so close to the subject...

 

[Dao]

If all that for just one project, would it be cheaper just to hire someone?

 

[Ron Evers]

I do not have a 1:1 macro lens so I took my Minolta Celtic 1:2 macro & backed it up with a Vivitar 2x tele-converter for this shot:

I the added a Raynox DCR-150 conversion lens on the front for this shot:

I have no idea why I am getting the blue hexagon in the centre of the frame as all light was from the sides & back of the lens.


I will try a 24mm close focus lens on tubes & see what I can get.

 

[oldmacman]

10:1 (that is the MPE + 2*Teleconverter)

Cool shots. I think I like the 5:1 for the sharpness over the 10:1 and I really like the 1:1 pic for the abstract nature of the point with all the bokeh in the frame. Is that the camera reflecting in the sphere of the ball point in the 10:1? Wow, Even at 10:1 the ball point isn't close to filling the frame.

 

[Overread]

However if we push to 20:1 (that is the MPE + sigma 2*TC+ canon 2*TC) then we get a little closer (though its darn tricky - esp when the floor isn't quite a solid surface).

Both shots are in focus - however both are well into beyond the lenses best limits. The first has an odd green cast to some of the colours; but retains the best sharpness; whilst the second loses the green fringing but is so strongly affected by diffraction that even with strong sharpening its still a soft photo. I'll have to check the actual apertures but reported on the camera they are f3.5 and then f9 - but because of the MPE and the teleconverters the actual apertures are much smaller.