I just finished selling off most of my 43rds gear with the exception of my original E1, one E5, the 50-200 SWD and my 35-100f2. Since July I've been doing 99% of my shooting with my two OM-D's which came with the 12-50 and 14-42 kit lenses, a used 40-150 I picked up used for $150 and I caved in to lens lust and grabbed a new 75f1.8 a couple months ago. So, I now have a fair bit of cash on hand from selling off a nice collection of 43rds gear and that has been allocated to photography equipment - definition: more m43 lenses. I have years of personal experience shooting with focal lengths ranging from 7 to 1200 but now with the move into m43 I once again find I have difficulty choosing just what I need the most on top of what I've already got. The lenses that have been tempting me are the Oly 60f1.8 Macro, the new Oly 17f1.8, the Oly 45, and Pany's 12-35 f2.8. In reviewing the data from a lot of my shots I find that I don't really do that much work at the ultra wide end of the spectrum, and I have my two trusty, if not a bit on the big side, 43rds tele zooms to catch the longer end. That leaves me seeking the best options for shooting everything else in the mid ranges. I have become quite intrigued by Macro work, I started playing with the Macro settings on the 12-50, saw it's limitations, and that is why the 60 Macro is on the list.
I've read every review and test of each candidate, they're all stellar performers and each highly recommended by the reviewers. But I'm still stuck in the "which way should I go?" mode and seeking opinions from those I feel are qualified to give them, and that means you guys. So, if you don't mind sharing some of your thoughts on my quandary I'd be most appreciative. :thumbup:
cheers, and Happy New Year!!
Lorne Miller
If I may paraphrase and reformat a little:
You currently have:
50-200mm f/2.8~3.5 Zoom,
35-100mm f/2.0 Constant Zoom,
12-50mm f/3.5~6.3 (Macro) Zoom,
14-42mm f/3.5~5.6 Zoom,
40-150mm f/3.5~4.5 Zoom,
75mm f/1.8 Prime,
You're currently thinking about:
17mm f/1.8 Prime,
45mm f/1.8 Prime,
12-35mm f/2.8 Constant Zoom,
60mm f/2.8 Macro Prime, (you typed f1.8 by the way)
You're currently interested in macro and you're not very interested in UWA shooting.
That about sum it up? It would seem to me that there is a lot of redundancy listed there and also too many dark zooms but I wanna talk about what you seem most interested in - macro!
The Olympus 60mm f/2.8 is good but almost all reviewers give it much higher marks than is the reality of the situation. This lens falls a little short in the micro-contrast department and that's one of the main qualities which set apart the exceptional from the average-good when talking macro. It's weather sealed and has a few convenience features like instant 1:1 focus setting. It does 1:1 [which is NOT 2x (2:1) in 35mm equivalence as some reviewers suggest - nor does the crop factor affect working distance as yet others suggest] and 1:1 reproduction ratio is important in a macro lens - more if you can get it. The AF is incredible at high magnifications too but AF isn't useful almost at all at such magnifications and it is focus-by-wire (
FBW) which sucks for macro work. The bokeh disks are not round but jagged - and that's quite annoying for me. And it's working distance (
WD) is less than desirable - as almost all focal lengths below about 100mm will be.
I've spent a lot of time investigating the ultimate macro lens and setup and here are some of the things I've discovered:
1) Focusing
From about 1:5 to 1:1 AF isn't useful because focusing is accomplished by timing the shutter to your natural bobbing and swaying. At those high magnifications 1mm of head, torso, or hand movement throws the subject out of focus - even at small apertures. The other way to accomplish focus is on a tripod with either bellows or a set of macro-rails and here again AF is hardly needed nor at all handy to have. Sure, focus on something a meter away (not macro) and AF is a style choice and very handy to some people - but you already have that covered with your 75/1.8 which has better IQ and bokeh anyway.
When manually focusing via the focus ring a large to very large throw is desirable. FBW is the last thing you want for making super tiny adjustments at high magnifications. The Oly 60/2.8 has a pretty good FBW as FBW goes but that still isn't good enough in some situations.
2) Micro-contrast (
MC)
Up there with focusing mechanisms MC is one of the more critical aspects when considering macro lenses. It's important in normal lenses too but much more-so in a macro. Why? Well, a couple of reasons:
a) Framing doesn't happen in the same way with macro so to achieve aesthetic framing you usually need to crop.
b) Working distance and magnification almost never come together ideally for the subject you wish to capture so you will be SEVERELY cropping most of your images.
With so much cropping going on the MC details become hyper-critical even for many shots you will only post to the web - at web-sized scales. Of course just as it is with any non-macro lens MC becomes less and less important as one scales the images down in size. If I were to score MC across the various macro lenses I've tried the Oly 60/2.8 would get a 7.8 or 8 out of 10 which is pretty average-ish and nothing exceptional or spectacular.
3) Working Distance (
WD)
Working Distance is different from Minimum Focusing Distance (
MFD) in that WD is the distance from the tip of the lens (be it the front element or the filter thread ring) and the focus plane when the lens is set to it's MFD. MFD is the distance from the sensor plane to the focus plane at it's nearest setting. Subject Distance which Olympus marks on this lens's barrel, is also measured from the imaging (sensor or film) plane. WD is a critical factor for two primary reasons:
a) The intrusion factor - where getting too close to your subjects upsets them or causes them to panic and leave the scene, and
b) The Lighting triangle conspiracy - where it becomes increasingly difficult to properly light the subject the closer you get to it.
The WD ranges for 1:1 captures work out to:
- 0.1cm ~ 5cm: nearly impossible. You have to invent your own lighting system.
- 5cm ~ 10cm: very difficult. Some specialized diffused ring flashes can work OK-ishly.
- 10cm ~ 15cm: Almost comfortable. Commercial and DIY lighting is easy-ish and available$.
- 15cm ~ 20cm: Yes! Nice. Even natural lighting can be used and diffused artificial lighting systems really shine (pun intended) at these distances!
- 20cm ~ 30cm: Great for lighting but at these lengths camera stabilization begins to become quite a major issue (even with most tripods) - especially on the far end of that range.
The WD for the Olympus 60mm f/2.8 Macro lens is 7.6cm by my crude measurement and 8.2cm
according to Olympus. The discrepancy between us may be that they measured from somewhere on the front element and I measured from the edge of the filter thread ring. Unfortunately we can not believe any of the reviews we read for this measurement as it seems even some well established sites are publishing reviews from authors who don't know what WD is nor how to measure it - very discouraging - even more discouraging is that they also don't understand magnification ratios and how to measure them - lame!
Either way 8.2cm or 7.6cm, you can see that it falls into the range of "very difficult" to light and too close for comfort to most of the living mobile subjects that are fun to shoot and who hang around in the likely locations. MFD is also somewhat important as that places our head&shoulders at a distance from the more aware insects and living creatures able to detect or assess our large body mass in proximity to themselves. A reasonable MFD for many critters starts right around 50cm. The Olympus 60/2.8 is around 20cm which again is too close for a lot of stuff.
4) Lighting
I've pretty much already said or at least inferred, the important bits about how the lens itself affects lighting or the lighting you're able to use with it. Lighting itself is a huge subject as I'm sure you know, and variables only multiply when we begin to discuss photomacography or photomicrography. I won't try rewriting or even paraphrasing any of the books out there on the subject but the gist of it is that a strong very diffuse light source radiating from the front/top onto the subject is the most desirable in achieving that gorgeous "macro look" we see so many images posted with. You can check out sites like
www.photomacrography.net :: Index or threads like
Post Your Set Up! - FM Forums in order to see and read about some of the solutions people far better than myself have come up with.
I guess it's time to take numbers and name names - of lenses which performed better than the Olympus 60/2.8 or at least recommend some I've used so I'll do that bit now. In the list below all of the ones around the 100mm Fl have nice working distances at 1:1. The ones around 50 or 60mm have about the same as the Olympus 60/2.8 typically within a centimeter or two anyway. The top two in this are perfect lenses. Actually honestly perfect in almost each and every way. And I liked the Voigtlander better than the Leica between the two. With either lens you can actually display the images at 150% to 200% and they will look as good or better than most $500 to $800 dollar
good lenses do at 100% - even on a sensor such as found in the older GH1. On a sensor without an AA filter or with milder AA filtering I can only imagine how good they would be. Lenses 3 through 13 all trounced the Olympus 60/2.8 in terms of both MC detail and MF smoothness. And Lens #14 I thought was pretty close to identical though still slightly better in performance both at 1:1 while on the PK-13 and at it's native 1:2 than the Olympus 60/2.8. All of these non-dedicated lenses can be mounted on extension tubes for higher magnifications yet however most of the ones designated 1:1 as their max magnification begin to rapidly lose resolution and detail at around 3:1 or 4:1 (3x or 4x) and the ones designated 1:2 begin to lose it at about 2:1 or so.
- Voigtlander Lanthar 125mm f/2.5 APO 1:1 Macro ($1800 ~ $2800 used depending on mount)
- Leica 120mm f/2.5 Summarit-S APO 1:2 Macro ($4500 ~$6500 depending on condition - $7k new)
- Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 Dedicated Macro 1:1 ~ 5:1 (5x) ($500 ~ $900 just depending.. $900 is new price $650 is like new no box)
- Olympus 38mm f/2.8 Bellows 1:3 - 8:1 (8x) ($350 ~ $750)
- Canon 100mm f/2.8 non-IS Macro 1:1 ($350 ~ $550)
- Sigma 150 f/2.8 Macro 1:1 (average price $550)
- Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1 (average price $435)
- Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 (MF and AF derivative) Macro 1:2 ($100 ~ $300)
- Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D Macro 1:1 (Don't get the newer 2.8G AF-S one - it's actually worse!) ($300 ~ $475)
- Contax Zeiss 100mm f/2.8 Makro Planar 1:1 (typically $800)
- Rodenstock Rodagon 105mm f/5.6 (Enlarger Lens on a Bellows) - Infinity focusing ~ 5:1
- Minolta AF 50mm f/2.8 Macro 1:1 ($150 ~ $300)
- Tamron SP 60mm f/2 Di II Macro 1:1 (About $400)
- Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 Macro 1:2 (1:1 with PK-13) ($50 ~ $150(mint))
There are many lenses from $50 on up which were not intended by the manufacturer to be used as macro lenses which perform magnificently and are as good or nearly as good, as any of the lenses 3 ~ 14, listed here. But in the same paragraph, they typically begin to lose resolution and detail much past 1.5:1 or sometimes 2:1 in really good cases. (that's 1.5x / 2x). Pretty much any 135mm lens known for it's sharpness will perform extremely well on a bellows or extension tubes. Which brings me to your new Olympus 75mm f/1.8 acquisition.
Kenko has released a set of extension tubes with µ4/3 signal pass-thru which ought to bring your 75/1.8 really really close to 1:1 (or maybe even a little past 1:1) and the 75/1.8 exhibits better MC detail than the 60/2.8 does.
Kenko DG Extension Tube Set for Micro Four Thirds - YouTube
This guy introduces the Kenko tubes but demonstrates them by using the 20mm pancake which is a pretty ridiculous thing to do! One of your zooms that clear 100mm or that 75/1.8 you got, will give you a longer working distance than the 60/2.8 and probably the same or better IQ too. Remember again that AF isn't needed or really even useful for macro so another consideration are extension tubes that don't have an electrical pass-thru used with inexpensive legacy lenses. While these Kenko tubes go for about $150 the connectionless ones sell for about $25 or $30 on ebay. With either one the money you save over the $500 60/2.8 could be put toward some nice macro lighting, macro focusing rails, or etc. Something to think about anyway.
OK, I'm tired of typing.
I hope this helped more than confused you - or anyone reading on.