tubes + lens + reversed lens?

[CouncilmanDoug]

So I got some cheap extension tubes that I've been playing with, mainly using all 49mm of tubes and a 135mm 2.8, I've been able to get shots like this from a reasonable distance

But I was wondering what would happen if I got a reversing ring and put a 50mm on the front of the 135, what would the magnification be like compared to this?

 

[David8]

So I got some cheap extension tubes that I've been playing with, mainly using all 49mm of tubes and a 135mm 2.8, I've been able to get shots like this from a reasonable distance
picture removed
But I was wondering what would happen if I got a reversing ring and put a 50mm on the front of the 135, what would the magnification be like compared to this?

Not sure. But reversing rings are dirt cheap and a LOT of fun. Buy one and find out? I got mine for ~$2!

 

[Judobreaker]

I'm not sure by how much but you'd definitely increase the magnification.

 

[Nervine]

480Sparky gave me this great advice.

You can readily find the reproduction ratio by simply photographing the edge of a ruler and comparing the long dimension of the image with the dimensions of the sensor. If you record 24mm of the ruler and your sensor measures 24x16mm, you have a 1:1 ration. If the image recordss, say, 20mm, then you have 1.2:1. 10mm? 2.4:1.

Reversing a lens on the tubes will increase the ratio, but operating the aperture becomes problematic with modern lenses that do not have an aperture ring.

I believe and I could be wrong as I haven't tested it but you would have better magnification by reversing a smaller focal length lens onto the tubes. ie a 28mm reversed on tubes. However as mentioned aperture becomes a problem. I bought a 28mm full manual Minolta lens to reverse on end of my tubes.

 

[Judobreaker]

He's not talking about either reversing the 135mm or the 50mm Nervine.
He wants to reverse the 50mm on top of the 135mm which would increase magnification for sure.

 

[Derrel]

Way to calculate reverse-lens magnification? - Canon Digital Photography Forums

 

[Derrel]

I just popped a 135mm f/2.8 Ai-S Nikkor manual focus lens and 3 Kenko tubes (12mm,20mm,36mm) onto my old D2x. Wow...it's close-up. I then held a 50mm 1.8 AF Nikkor reversed, at the front of the 135...cannot find the doggone 52-to-52mm filter thread ring...damn...the magnification is SO freaking high it's almost impossible to use...the area covered is just a scant few millimeters x a few milli's...and the focus point seems to be doggone near the front of the rear element on the reversed 50.

I just tried it with 36mm of extension and the 50mm reversed...it's...ridiculously difficult to focus while holding the 50mm in place, and the focus point is about 1 inch from the rear element.

 

[CouncilmanDoug]

I just popped a 135mm f/2.8 Ai-S Nikkor manual focus lens and 3 Kenko tubes (12mm,20mm,36mm) onto my old D2x. Wow...it's close-up. I then held a 50mm 1.8 AF Nikkor reversed, at the front of the 135...cannot find the doggone 52-to-52mm filter thread ring...damn...the magnification is SO freaking high it's almost impossible to use...the area covered is just a scant few millimeters x a few milli's...and the focus point seems to be doggone near the front of the rear element on the reversed 50.

I just tried it with 36mm of extension and the 50mm reversed...it's...ridiculously difficult to focus while holding the 50mm in place, and the focus point is about 1 inch from the rear element.

haha I love the length of the 135 with tubes, but I tried just taping my 50d to the front and yeah it was a little too much haha, had to be way too close. this is a shot of a chair with it haha

 

[Austin Greene]

As mentioned, the general convention is that you want something wider, such as a 50mm, 35mm, or 28mm. Consider how a lens gathers light normally, and then reverse that to think of how it will work on a reversal ring. What your describing is not a standard setup, and for a reason, your working distance would be zilch. Better to have a 50mm or 28mm on tubes, or maybe a reversed 50/28 on tubes.