reversing lens

Just a quick question.. is the DA 35 f2.4 AL suitable for macro ...ie using with reversing ring ?

Sadly the answer is "not really"

The DA lenses lack an aperture ring so they default to the smallest aperture when not mounted on a camera in the usual manner.

If you want something cheap and cheerful to play with a reversing ring then look for one of the Pentax-M 50mm lenses. The f1.7 is regarded as the sharpest but the f2 is no slouch either. As these have an aperture ring they can be set to a chosen aperture and will hold this when reversed.

Or even a Takumar or K lens.

Or even a Chinon. Don't repeat this, but you can use any make of lens if it's reversed. And most 50s are sharp.

G

I use a reversed Nikon el-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 enlarger lens.

Enlarging lenses, being designed to work at short distances, do make excellent macro lenses on a bellows.

And they are designed to render a particularly flat field

And they aren't designed to resist flare and flare up
at the drop of a hat!

A lot of enlarger lenses are poorly built suffering mostly
from misalignement or decentering See 5th post down : link

Rodenstock Eurygon's aren't too bad though, I've got a recent 40mm
f/4 and some Eurygon's were used as camera lenses even macro lenses.
link

I'm not sure what you do about the illuminated scale on an enlarger lens
It will let light though the other way.... needs blanking off somehow.

Edit: This is the same as the one I've got. link
-

We're assuming high quality enlarging lenses, there are plenty of good Nikkors to be had.

Nikkors are usually OK, but do usually have illuminated scales.
The 50mm f/4 was a dog

I think you must have had a damaged one Algi, all those I've used have been excellent lenses.

All the 50mm Nikons were poor compared to the 50mm Omicron's
The 63mm Nikon was a different beast.

Some Nikonite's tried to claim the Omicrons were made by Nikon,
but it was disproved in this post link They were probably made by Tomioka. I have a (rare) 75mm Yashica enlarger lens that
looks similar.

Sadly Omicron's aren't much use as macro lenses, they flare up!

I use a 50mm f1.8 pentacon lens that I had with an old practica.

I'm the limitation rather than the lens.

The el-nikkor 50mm f/4 has a poorer reputation in extreme macro circles. The one to get is the 2.8 II (newer plastic version, better coating etc), about £50 on eBay. It's a really cracking little performer. Compared to 10 or so Pentax lenses I have in the 24-50 range, it's sharper, more contrasty and doesn't give you the bizarre strange lightplays I get in some OOF areas with some Pentax lenses. 2.8 is also brighter and easier than 4, although the actual shot tends to be taken at 5.6 or 8.

But it's all relative. Ie if you've never used the f/2.8, the f/4 is pretty wow. And there's variation within lenses - you could get a lousy f/2.8, which is worse than a fab f/4. And, the difference is less than you think, so it takes an experienced eye to see it. Reversing an enlarger lens is a specialist tool, you don't need to buy it unless you really get into it. As in Pentax lenses already give you a good 90% of the performance so they're perfectly fine if you don't do this regularly.

In Ancient Times the standard lens was often doubled up as an enlarger lens. Not ideal maybe, but they were symmetrical designs and not too shabby.

The Pentax 55mm f1.8 lenses were pretty good for this, so I hear.

A lot of people have a go at this because it's a fun, cheap way to get beyond 1:1. That's how I started too. Time permitting, one of my winter projects should be to churn out a comparison for people using the various (cheap old) lenses I have that are suitable, -k, -m, -a. I also have 3 -a 1.7s so that'll be an interesting opportunity to test reversed lens sample variation at the same time.