Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Olympus macro lens question  (Read 4150 times)

Trevor Murgatroyd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 42
Olympus macro lens question
« on: December 06, 2017, 05:25:11 pm »

I am planning to do more macro photography. I do not have a macro lens, and am wondering if I need one. I use the Olympus OMD EM5 II (micro 4/3, crop factor 2) camera and have the Olympus 12-100 f4, 40-150 f2.8, and 12-40 f2.8 Pro lenses (mm doubled, of course, for 35mm equivalent). These lenses are very sharp and have quite short closest focusing distances.

Given that the lenses I have allow me to fill the frame with a sharp image of a small object even though they are not 1:1, I am not sure what additional benefit I would get from a true macro lens such as the Olympus 60mm f2.8. Is there something special about true macro lenses that I do not yet understanding?

I would much appreciate an explanation,

Trevor

Logged

nma

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 312
Re: Olympus macro lens question
« Reply #1 on: December 07, 2017, 02:25:47 pm »

Trevor,

I don't claim to be an expert in this area. I have the Oly 60mm Macro Lens, 12-40 pro Zoom and several other "longer" m43 lenses. The lenses you have are excellent for close-up photography. Just guessing that they can achieve a magnification of about 0.3 life size, with good image quality and working distance. But if you want to go to life size magnification or more, you will appreciate a macro lens.  This is the most convenient route to higher magnification but there are other options, such as close-up lenses and extension tubes. The basic trade off is between cost, working distance, image quality and convenience.

I enjoy using the Oly 60mm macro, particularly with the focus bracketing features on the E-M1 and E-M5.ii

Logged

Trevor Murgatroyd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 42
Re: Olympus macro lens question
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2017, 05:11:04 pm »

Many thanks for your response. Now I can agree with you because I was unable to resist the temptation to buy the 60mm macro lens and I played with it yesterday. It does indeed get me much closer and gives a much higher level of magnification that will be crucial for some of the images I am thinking of. It is also a nice portrait lens.
Logged

donbga

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 454
Re: Olympus macro lens question
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2018, 11:58:16 am »

Many thanks for your response. Now I can agree with you because I was unable to resist the temptation to buy the 60mm macro lens and I played with it yesterday. It does indeed get me much closer and gives a much higher level of magnification that will be crucial for some of the images I am thinking of. It is also a nice portrait lens.

I have the Olympus 60mm f/2.8 and it's a great all purpose lens. For 1:1 macro work it can work ok if the subject distance is what you need. Canon close up diopter lens filters are relatively affordable and high quality optios to consider.
Logged

Lennywat

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
  • Hello
Re: Olympus macro lens question
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2020, 09:29:56 am »

Hi need help, I want to make a present to my wife, but I’m not very versed in the topic, which is better than Canon 60mm or Olympus 60mm? My Wife Uses a DSLR camera Canon. I will be grateful for the advice
Logged
tu tu

TonyVentourisPhotography

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 388
    • Unlocking Olympus
Re: Olympus macro lens question
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2020, 09:05:42 am »

The Olympus 60 won’t work on a DSLR.  So if she uses canon, ide recommend the canon 100mm macro.  That will give the equivalent field of view and magnification as the Olympus 60 on an Olympus camera. 

I personally love the Olympus macros.  I have both the 30 and 60.  When you need true 1:1, they can’t be beat.  Otherwise I rarely carry the macro with me if I have the 12-40 on general outings or trips in nature.  I can usually live with 1:3 macro.  The 12-40 at 40mm and the 40-150 at 150 yield basically the same image magnification at close focus.  The 12-40 is easier to work with in that regard, but you have slightly more working distance with the 40-150.  It’s interesting. 

The 60mm macro can make amazing images especially with the focus stacking option.
Logged
Tony
Unlockingolympus.com (ebooks & blog on getting the most from your OMD & Pen)
tonyventourisphotography.com (Commercial Photography)

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: Olympus macro lens question: minimum field size desired?
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2020, 04:53:40 pm »

For my macro interests, the size of the smallest subject that I can fill the frame with is more important than  the arbitrary goal of “life size on the sensor”, and minimum field size is what measures that. For example, with 35mm film format, 1:1 macros fills the frame with a 36x24mm subject, whereas in Four Thirds, 1:2 does about the same: field size 35x26mm. The traditional 1:1 or other magnification measures make sense when comparing cameras in the same format (or with films of equal resolution?), but not do much when comparing cameras in different formats and sensors of different resolution in lines/mm.

I have and love the Olympus 60/2.8 macro, but rarely go all the way in to its 1:1 at minimum focusing distance which gives a tiny 17.3x13mm field size. But I can see how you might enjoy that extreme close-up option, equivalent to what you get with 2:1 “twice life size” macro in 35mm format.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2020, 04:56:41 pm by BJL »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up