It's good I had OM-D and a $1000 macro lens...

Started Mar 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
gardenersassistant
Contributing MemberPosts: 823
Like?
Re: It's good I had OM-D and a $1000 macro lens...
In reply to danijel973, Mar 8, 2013

danijel973 wrote:

Well, you certainly can use AF for macro if magnification isn't that high...

I'm curious as to how high a magnification you find is too high for AF. I pretty much always use AF, and frequently go beyond 1:1 (that is 1:1 in MFT terms, i.e. with an image 18mm or less across). I quite often use the Raynox 250 with full zoom which captures an image about 12mm across.

I don't use the Raynox MSN-202 much, but it can take me down to scenes 4.5mm across.  I rarely if ever go that far, generally using it for scenes around 8-10mm or so across. But when I do use the MSN-202 I use AF.

You may wonder how I know how wide the scenes are. One of the advantages of using achromats is that I can work out the scene width from the focal length using this chart.

and I sometimes do when I use my Canon stuff but it is so clumsy, unpredictable and unwieldly I usually switch to MF when it starts hunting and just use the focus points for confirmation.

I'm sorry to hear you find your Canon gear pretty much unusable with AF for macro. Fortunately with AF for macro I find my Panasonic gear easy to use, flexible, predictable, reliably accurate, fast to focus and does not hunt, at any magnification.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow