Did somebody say magnification?

Earlier comment some of you may or may not have read by me:

BLAH BLAH BLAH close focus NERD BLAH 1.67 to 1.

This got me thinking — if I reverse my 24mm and put it in front of my 1.4x teleconverter, what kind of magnification would I get? Theoretically, the 24 should give me greater magnification than my 28, right? Take the center part of that image, spread it out a bit, and we get something ginormous:



That's the E string on my guitar. It's a 46 gauge, which means, after a bit of multiplication, I achieve a 2.56:1 magnification ratio with that setup. Dial set to 22, flash set to 1/16 output. What's scary is that I could get a bit better than that, even, if I left the filter attached to the threads between the camera body and the reversing ring.

By the way, unless you like feeling really inadequate in your dusting skills, don't take pictures at that depth of field setting with that sort of magnification. It's just depressing.

Update: I finished testing. Using this basic math process:
28 by itself
3008 pixel image width, 268 pixel string width
8.9 percent image width
23.5mm sensor width, 2.09mm width on sensor
reproduction ratio:
2.09/1.17 = ~1.78:1
I have taken pictures of the known quantity, the low E string on my guitar, with all possible lens combinations (except the reversed 24 by itself, which I forgot until just now; that one, I have interpolated, because the 1.4 multiplier holds for the other two lenses). Data? Grandmother!

reversed 24+1.4x... 2.56:1
reversed 24........ 1.82:1
reversed 28+1.4x... 2.50:1
reversed 28........ 1.78:1
reversed 50+1.4x... 0.71:1
reversed 50........ 0.50:1


Neat!

Here's something else I picked up with the 24:

Oregano leaves!

Here's the leftovers.