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

Tyson Robichaud has posted the first negative review of the M. Zuiko 60/2.8 Macro.

http://tysonrobichaudphotography.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/against-the-grain-on-the-new-olympus-60mm-f2-8-macro-lens/

Tyson doesn't like the lens because:

1) Autofocus is poor in low light, which reduces the lens's usefulness shooting portraits.

2) Focus by wire is "not optimal" for macro work.

3) Resolution seems to deteriorate more at high ISO more than it does with some other lenses.

What do you guys think?

Personally, I haven't experienced problems "2" and "3", although I do agree with him that autofocus is frustrating in low light, even with the focus-limiting switch enabled. It's pretty much a waste of time shooting people indoors. Autofocus is okay outside.



Grasshopper (not a cricket).

The same grasshopper (not a cricket).

--
-------------------------------
My Flickr stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottkmacleod/

. . . . has a BUG in it !!!

smiles . . and HNY !!

--
Paul
Vancouver, WA
http://www.pbase.com/spdavis/a_few_nifty_galleries

Meh. It's my favorite lens for my em5 due to its f2.8 and sharpness. I feel like my rate of keepers is higher with that lens. It's the first lens I've had where when I look at pics I'm not disappointed by lack of sharpness or aberration or fringing.

I also find that I can find focus manually quite easily.

Depth of field is shallow with macro work and to get what you want in focus, manually focusing at least for me is the best method.

Of course with today's touch focus lcd screens it might not be so necessary, but even the slightest movement of the camera, if you're hand holding, will throw the focus off.

Optimum macro is done with the camera on a tripod.

Am I sounded old school?

Isabel

--
http://www.pbase.com/image/111520345.jpg
http://www.pBase.com/isabel95
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipets/ A friendly place to discuss photography, where no question is "dumb"

Tyson doesn't like the lens because:

1) Autofocus is poor in low light, which reduces the lens's usefulness shooting portraits.

--- he claims he was having trouble shooting his son with the equivalent of 10 60W bulbs 5ft away. Give me a break, 600W 5ft away? Yes the focus slows in low light but maybe once you get to the equivalent of 2 60w bulbs in a large bedroom. Its a macro lens, if you are expecting fast focus then you don't understand how macro lenses work. With focus limiter in use under the lighting he describes I find the 60mm really close in speed to the 45mm.

2) Focus by wire is "not optimal" for macro work.

---- true but totally usable once you adjust to it

3) Resolution seems to deteriorate more at high ISO more than it does with some other lenses.

- - - not sure if thats even technically possible?

What do you guys think?

I have to admit that I don't find the 60mm "really close in speed to the 45" for low-light autofocusing.

I was photographing some friends inside the other night and having a hell of a job with the 60mm because it was hunting wildly. I switched to the 45mm and immediately noticed the improvement in autofocus speed. It was a bit embarrassing, really, because one of the friends I was photographing had just bought an E-M5 and I was trying to show off the 60mm - and it really failed.

--
-------------------------------
My Flickr stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottkmacleod/

I agree. However, it depends what you are shooting. If you are shooting inside under controlled conditions then it is definitely a good idea to use a tripod. In my case, I like shooting insects. I find a tripod to be too much trouble when shooting bugs. Autofocus can be handy in such situations. I probably use autofocus about 50 per cent of the time when shooting macro outdoors.

Nope!

--
-------------------------------
My Flickr stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottkmacleod/

He is not describing what I would call low light, that's why I said under the conditions he was describing.... Namely 600W of lighting only 5ft away. As the light drops the difference in speed grows between the 60 and 45, which isn't surprising based on the fact the 45mm lets 1.5 stops more light get to the sensor for focusing.

Low light focus - I think there's something wrong with technique or his system. This is so different to my experience I had to go and test it. Even in light that requires a 5" exposure at ISO200, f2.8, the 60mm was still nailing targets first go. I wonder if he's trying to do contrast autofocus on featureless areas or something.

Focus by wire is "not optimal" for macro work. - Pffft. Practice. I'd also like to point out that

"If you have AF enabled (I tend to use S-AF + MF), and you accidentally let your finger off the shutter, you can potentially kiss your finely tuned and focused frame goodbye as you watch the lens rack in and out to try and reestablish focus."

applies to most lenses, whether focus by wire or mechanically linked, like the 12-60. Does anyone have any examples of AF lenses with a mechanical focus that the camera will not try and fight against, or just override, when the shutter button is repressed?

Resolution seems to deteriorate more at high ISO more than it does with some other lenses. - I think I'd need to see an explanation as to how that's supposed to work.

I agree that the autofocus is pretty bad.  It certainly hunts in light that none of off my other lenses struggle.  It is noticibly worse than the 20/1.7.  I'm hoping this will be improved via a firmware update.

And? I'm not sure what he was expecting.  Honestly, I haven't found manual focus to be a problem in any way.  Certainly no different than any other focus by wire lens.

i haven't noticed this.  I wonder if we would be more critical of a macro lens because we pixel peep them more?

Personally, I'm thrilled with the lens.  No regrets.  Hopefully the autofocus is improved via firmware and it will be close to perfect.

If I had no macro lens with an E-M5 body and a prime or two but wanted a bug capturing macro and price is not a factor; with the lens as they are  today with no firmware upgrades would I be better off with the 12-50 kit lens or the 60 2.8?

The 60 2.8 is optically a much, much better lens than the 12-50. It's certainly a hell of a lot sharper.

--
-------------------------------
My Flickr stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottkmacleod/

While #1 is certainly possible, #3 is not. Any photographer who thinks that their lens magically changes resolution characteristics and causes sensors to have a different noise response at high ISO is either smoking something or doesn't know what they're talking about. C'mon people. Really.

--
Dave Sanders

Thank you Scott, indeed sharp details is what it is all about.

All tools benefit from customized technique, sounds like the 60 f 2.8 just requires some extra tender loving care. That will likely yield some nice bright subjects.

How low does the light have to be to cause problems?  I had one for a short while, I immediately took it to a local museum that has very low lighting - I never noticed any AF issues  (providing the dial was set appropriately).  Unfortunately it was decentered, front focused on the right edge,  I'm  waiting for a replacement.



--
----
http://www.flickr.com/photos/digitaltrails/

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 -

Especially when you're trying to photograph an insect!

I rarely use one.

I find that a longer macro lens yields more keepers because I'm not as apt to disturb the insect and have it fly off.

One of my favorite macro lenses is my Canon 300mm f/4L - great for butterflies!

My favorite, favorite macro lens is on my Fujifilm F30 camera.  I put that in aperture priority and set it for f/8 and turn on the flash on, making a minus exposure compensation to keep the flash from burning out my subject since I'm working very close to it.  The lcd brightness can be temporarily boosted with the press of the up cursor button.  So even with bright sunlight and no viewfinder I can shoot amazing macros with super depth of field with it.

I've also had fun with the Raynox DCR250 screw on closeup lens on my Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 (I think there's another Raynox that gives you more working room.)  I got a kick out of this shot with it on my E-PL1:

Nothing, however, beats a dedicated macro lens for versatility.  Extension tubes, a cheap way to go, give you a very restricted working distance.

Isabel

--
http://www.pbase.com/image/111520345.jpg
http://www.pBase.com/isabel95
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipets/ A friendly place to discuss photography, where no question is "dumb"

I like the 60mm for happy insects that don't fly away, and the Oly 70-300 for flighty insects. It gives 1:2 reproduction at 0.96m. That's a pretty awesome working distance.

Thank you for the link!...

Certainly that a guy (Tyson Robichaud) who says :

"3) Resolution seems to deteriorate more at high ISO more than it does with some other lenses."

is not worthy of any consideration...

--
(equipment in profile)
stefano-italy

How do you find the 70-300, would it be worth buying one for the om-d if you dont already have one?

I'm imagining its effectively manual focus so ignore the af performance! Im looking at tele options but the native m43 ones seem lacking for the price.

Thanks