Intermediate Macro Techniques: Which Lens is Best?

A comment on one of my YouTube videos spurred a debate with a friend: What type of lens works best for a reverse-mount macro? This video tests various lenses from 24mm to 200mm to see how well they magnify an Australian $2 coin. In fact, the video opens with a photo from the best performer. You may be surprised by the results. Some of the results certainly surprised me.

Reverse-mounting a lens for macro use is pretty simple, with an adapter. For about $5 (USD), you can pick up a new, bargain-basement reverse adapter ring on eBay. That can serve you pretty well for a LOT of macro work.

The lenses I used:
Nikon Nikkor-Q 200mm 1:4
Nikon Nikkor-Q 125mm 1:3.5
Nikon Nikkor-P 105mm 1:2.5 (this wasn't tested, unfortunately, due to a best filter ring.)
Canon 100mm 1:4 (1:1 macro) in FD mount
Sigma 50mm 1:2.8 (1:1 macro)
Takumar 50mm 1:1.4
Tokinal-EL 28mm 1:2.8
Canon 24mm 1:2.8 in FD mount
Nikon Nikkor Zoom 43-86mm 1:3.5
Nikon Series E 36-72mm 1:3.5

Shipspotting

I took the FTN out last Tuesday to see if it had bad light seals or the roll of film I'd previously used in it had a flaw. This camera needs new light seals, and I have to order the material for that this week. It may be a fun how-to blog to share the repair process for that.

For added contrast, I used a red filter. That darkened the sky and lightened all the reds. The results weren't too shabby.


1/1000th at f22. Darkened the sky a bit with the gamma function. The best shot from this roll, I think.


1/1000th at f22. It would have been great had the bird been facing me, but regardless there's not tons to be mad about here. I cloned the left side and dropped it on the right. This preserved the original image and repaired damage caused by the light leak.


1/1000th at f22. Darkened the sky a bit to correct some over-exposure. There's a horizontal line going across the image, a bit wavy. I left it in. That's a stratline and results from dirt in the film cassette felt or a burr on the camera body where the film crosses, among other causes. Those causes both result in perfectly straight stratlines, though. I'm not sure what caused this as I didn't touch the negative until after it dried. And at that, didn't touch the emulsion. If it happens again, it will warrant further investigation.


1/500th f11. A different kind of bird.


1/1000th, f22. Very grainy. The developer was, I think, past its usable lifespan.


1/500th, f16. Here you can see mild damage caused by the light leak. On many images, this was substantially worse.


1/250th, f22. Another image damaged by light leak, so I had to again clone the left side and put it on the right.