First negative review of the M. Zuiko 60/2.8 Macro

Franka T.L. wrote:

Well I would not rate point no.3 as a lens issue ( resolving at high ISO ) optically it matters not the light level, a lens that resolve will resolve as well as it can be , be it low light or good light ( discounting other environment issue ) Its more a lens / camera / software ( lens as in the needed soft correction applied )

That say, slow AF in poor light and poor MF is indeed of some concern. While some might not needing or seeing that, some would, and as a Macro lens, critical placement of focus plane is important. That's why many Macro lens had finely pitched, long flow focusing helical, to allow critical placement of the lens at specific focus plane. Focus by wire usually place a restriction on this one and I can see why it matters. And this might also be a problem why the lens AF so hard at low light as the AF mechanism is asked to do something approaching or exceed its limitation.

All that stated, the one problem I see with both of M4/3's macro is not the lens in itself, but the choice of focal length. Physical focal length and repro ratio is not related to the sensor format. At such short focal length, the lens, when used at Macro setup would leave in many cases too short a working distance. That is so with any format and one reason why Tele macro like 180 / 200 mm are welcomed by many Macro photographers.

--
- Franka -