My personal macro and tele lens comparison

[CrisPhoto]

Last week we had a short discussion in another forum thread about using the 45/1.8 and 75/1.8 lenses for macro. I said I would prefer tele-zooms or dedicated macro for macro shots. But I did not have the time to post some examples explaining what I meant …

I promised to post some samples, and finally here they are. Please keep in mind that the following only reflects my limited personal experience. While I have used about 8 lenses for macro, I I no professional and there are many, many lenses I never had the luck to use (like the 50/f2 macro or the 45/f2.8 or some fine FF or legacy lenses…)

But anyhow, for some people even my small list of lenses might be interesting enough.

Here again my personal “top ten” for macro use:

1. Oly 60/f2.8
2. Oly 35/f3.5
3. Oly 75-300 + Marumi330
4. Oly 40-150 + Marumi330
5. Oly 14-150 + Marumi330
6. Oly 75/1.8 with Marumi330
7. Oly 75/1.8 with extension rings

What are my pros/cons to put the lenses in this specific order?

Oly 60/f2.8:

• Pro: Very compact, nice handling, usable focus distance, focus pre-selection, fast AF, 1:1 and sharp
• Con: Working distance at 1:1 is only 5cm, little bit of softness at f8 and above

Oly 35/f3.5:

• Pro: 1:1 magnification and very, very sharp even in the corners. In fact the sharpest lens I ever had …
• Con: Slow AF, 35mm needs very short focus distance at 1:1

Oly 75-300:

• Pro: 1:1 magnification, Sharp up to 1:2 and 150mm, distance 35cm
• Con: Big and heavy, at 1:1.5/180mm and above no longer sharp and prone to back focus, fixed focus distance 35cm

Oly 40-150:

• Pro: Compact and sharp, nice handling, 1:2 magnification and distance 35cm
• Con: fixed focus distance 35cm

Oly 14-150:

Similar to 40-150 but some softness and CA (not as sharp as the 40-150)

Oly 75/1.8 + Marumi330:

• Pro: Good contrast, sharp at centre
• Con: only 1:3 magnification, slightly soft corners, fixed distance 12cm.

Oly 75/1.8 + Meike rings:

• Pro: Cheap, up t 1:2 magnification
• Con: Very soft corners and soft centre with 26mm (16mm is better), some distortion, fixed working distance 15cm. Bad contrast overall, maybe there is a light gap between the rings???

That’s my list, and now the samples I promised! I searched through my lightroom catalog and did some new photos:

First some strawberry shots, I had some problems to get the same focus for every shot, please search for the sharpest seed or hair (or simply compare the overall contrast and sharpness) in each sample:


100% crop

I have a crap spider in my garden, it’s a very patient macro target. Hope these pictures can demonstrate the contrast and magnification differences between the lenses even better. Watch the contrast at the eyes and the little hairs:


50% crops (100% would be to shallow)

Another sample which is easier to use over a longer time period is an old wristwatch (which I even took to my photo dealer to do some test shots). It has plenty contrast and I use flash to emphasize the contrast even more. Of course the pictures are not from the same session, so please forgive different focus points or different light …


100% crops with high contrast target at 1:2 mag

I think this posting is long enough, I will post a follow-up

• where I show lenses at mag 1:1
• and where I show the problem I faced with the superb 75mm used as macro …

My conclusion so far:

• I like a portrait lens also for occasional close-ups up to 1:4 magnification
• But I don't use it for real macro because it does not have the magnification. Or if I push it there, it is no longer sharp.
• My tele zooms can be used up to 1:2 magnification and while the distance is fixed with close-up lens, the zoom feature makes them very versatile even for macro work
• But even my biggest zoom, the 75-300, struggles when it comes to mag 1:1.
• For me (as I do some macros hand hold and as I try to get moving insect), fast AF is very important. Last year I used the 35mm macro and the 14-150 zoom quite often, at the end I preferred the 14-150 zoom over the 35mm macro simply because I missed so many shots with the extremely slow macro lens.

Chris

--
OM-D + Sam7.5, PL25, O45, O75
P12-35, O75-300

 

[CrisPhoto]

As said, here some samples at 1:2 or even 1:1 magnification:


100% crop, click at the picture to see the correct size

As expected, the macro lens has more magnification capability.

The "big" zoom lens gets near to 1:1, but

• shows about 1mm back focus, which is quite a lot for macro. Normally, I have to correct the focus manually.
• is no longer sharp, even stopped down to f11 it is very soft and has some "halo" effect.

And last not least from 1:1 mag back to 1:3 mag:

A sample that shows how my loved 75mm lens degrades if I force it into macro land. Ok, the picture is boring and the lines on paper had no contrast, but I hope you can see the softness at the edges as well as the slight distortion:

(By the way, you can count the squares, each 5mm, to get the minimum FOV I can get with 75mm lens and 26mm extension rings. It is about 38mm...)



I resist and don't post the corresponding grid for the 60mm. It is also boring, but I can assure the lines are straight and one has to zoom in much deeper to find the flaws ...

Chris

--
OM-D + Sam7.5, PL25, O45, O75
P12-35, O75-300

 

[CrisPhoto]

Excuse me, after doing all this pixel peeping, I feel the need to post these too:

Camera
E-M5
Focal Length
35mm
Aperture
f/4
Exposure
1/640s
ISO
200

Camera
E-M5
Focal Length
150mm
Aperture
f/9
Exposure
1/320s
ISO
200

Camera
E-M5
Focal Length
80mm
Aperture
f/9
Exposure
1/800s
ISO
200
--
OM-D + Sam7.5, PL25, O45, O75
P12-35, O75-300

 

[drpoop]

Great Post.

Seriously interesting to anyone who would like to dive into Macro photography and wants to compare their options.

You should also include some prices of the extensions and Diopters you use

Thanks !

 

[leendertcv]

Nice post!

My favorite lens for small insect macro photography is the m.Zuiko 40-150mm with Raynox DCR150.

 

[CrisPhoto]

drpoop wrote:

Great Post.

...

You should also include some prices of the extensions and Diopters you use

Thanks !

Ok, good hint.

I used the "Achromat Marumi DHG 3 58mm" which was around 54Euros.

And the "Meike Extension Tube Set MK-P-AF3B" I ordered in HongKong for 22Euros. Delivery took two weeks but I thought for the price I can not go wrong ...

Similar ones with higher price tag on ebay here .

My favorite (besides the 60mm) but with a very moderate price is the 40-150 combined with the Marumi lens.

 

[CrisPhoto]

leendertcv wrote:

Nice post!

My favorite lens for small insect macro photography is the m.Zuiko 40-150mm with Raynox DCR150.

Oh yes, I forgot the Raynox lens!

I bought the Marumi because I was afraid of potential vignetting using the Raynox.

But later someone in this forum assured that he absolutely has no vignetting.

Would I have to buy a close-up lens again, I would have a close look at the Raynox because the clip-on adapter might be easier to handle than the screw adapter of my Marumi.

By the way, I also did not mention the Canon close-up lenses. Many people are happy with the Canon. I think all three ( Raynox, Marumi and Canon) are optically very good. Which one to take depends only on personal preferences ...

 

[MiroM]

CrisPhoto wrote:

drpoop wrote:

Great Post.

...

You should also include some prices of the extensions and Diopters you use

Thanks !

Ok, good hint.

I used the "Achromat Marumi DHG 3 58mm" which was around 54Euros.

And the "Meike Extension Tube Set MK-P-AF3B" I ordered in HongKong for 22Euros. Delivery took two weeks but I thought for the price I can not go wrong ...

Similar ones with higher price tag on ebay here .

My favorite (besides the 60mm) but with a very moderate price is the 40-150 combined with the Marumi lens.

 

[drcPhoto]

Great post, thanks for sharing the information and comparison photos. Very informative.

Dale

 

[Martin.au]

Isn't working distance on the 60mm about 9cm?

 

[sinkas]

The practical working distance is 10cm see here (Thanks Robin) http://robinwong.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/olympus-mzuiko-60mm-f28-macro-review.html

Also see what this lens is capable of on Robin's site.

 

[toxinoz]

Useful post, thanks. I must say, I don't agree that your crab spider is crap. I prefer a macro prime to using a tele or zoom. Until recently that was the 45mm PanyLeica. Haven't had time to properly play with the 60mm yet. I usually use flash to get a small aperture, so greater DOF.

 

[Anders W]

Hi Chris,

Many thanks for posting your useful tests and experiences. I will be back with some reports on the equipment I have personally been considering for "macro" use (Oly 75/1.8, Oly 40-150/4-5.6 and Pany 100-300/4-5.6) together with my Canon 500D close-up lens and/or my newly acquired Fotga extension tubes. But first a few words about a problem you mentioned already in an earlier thread and mention again here: that of backfocusing.

This is a problem I have also encountered in my little "macro" tests and when I first did, it took me by surprise. After all, CDAF systems, unlike PDAF, are thought not to have any issues with systematic front- or back-focusing. So what was really going on?

Well, there are a couple of optical problems that can fool any AF system, whether CDAF or PDAF. One of them, which I was already aware of, is known as focus shift and implies that the best focus point varies with the f-stop used. If you focus wide open, whether by AF or MF, and then stop down for the actual exposure, the focus will be slightly suboptimal.

However, there is a second possibility too, which hasn't been all that clear to me until now, namely that the point a CDAF system (possibly a PDAF system too, I don't have a PDAF camera to test with any more) considers maximally sharp, i.e., the point of maximum contrast, is not the same as the one our own eyes would say is maximally sharp. During the little tests I performed in order to get to know my own equipment, I encountered some unusually clear examples of this problem, which I thought it might be a good idea to share so that others interested in doing "macro" will know what's going on and what to look out for.

The samples below are 100 percent crops from two images shot with my E-M5 and the Pany 100-300/4-5.6 wide open (f/5.6) at 300 mm with my high-quality Canon 500D (a +2 achromatic close-up lens) at the front end (fitted with a 67-58 mm step-down ring since my 500D is 58 mm). The first crop in each pair is maximally sharp according to the AF system, the second maximally sharp according to my own eyes. As you would guess, the second has focus set slightly closer to the camera than the point chosen by the AF system.

As I hope you can see, the AF system isn't really wrong given the criterion it is working with. The first crop in each pair undoubtedly has higher contrast. Yet, we (or at least I) perceive it as blurrier than the second, which is less contrasty but has more well-defined contours.

The known cause of focus shift is spherical aberration and I am pretty sure that the same aberration is responsible for what we see in these crops as well. Although we are likely to encounter this aberration in quite modest amounts when we use our native MFT lenses without add-ons like close-up lenses or extension tubes, it can, as these examples show, take on very significant magnitudes when we try to go closer than the lens ordinarily allows. In fact, based on what I have seen so far, this is the most significant problem we are likely to encounter when we try to use non-macro lenses for "macro". The problem, of course, is not only one of focusing. The MTF values (resolution/microcontrast) will suffer as well.

 

[CrisPhoto]

MiroM wrote:

CrisPhoto wrote:

drpoop wrote:

Great Post.

...

You should also include some prices of the extensions and Diopters you use

Thanks !

Ok, good hint.

I used the "Achromat Marumi DHG 3 58mm" which was around 54Euros.

And the "Meike Extension Tube Set MK-P-AF3B" I ordered in HongKong for 22Euros. Delivery took two weeks but I thought for the price I can not go wrong ...

Similar ones with higher price tag on ebay here .

My favorite (besides the 60mm) but with a very moderate price is the 40-150 combined with the Marumi lens.

 

[CrisPhoto]

Yes, you are both right.

I made a fast test this morning, the distance from front lens to object is 8,5cm and with lens hood it is 3cm.

I also measured the 75-300mm with +3 diopter, the focus distance from lens to object is between 26 and 32cm.

I think I got it wrong because with the 60mm I always have the tiny lenshood on and because it feels much, much closer compared to using tele zooms (where I avoid the huge lens hood as often as possible) ...

Chris

 

[CrisPhoto]

Hello AndersW,

thanks for your interesting input. I think there are many reasons for back focus, and your example was well chosen. I even thought that my wristwatch sample fools the 300mm lens the way you describe. Because the metallic lines shows some contrasty bokeh. But on the other hand the 60mm lens has similar bokeh and never fails to focus correctly. So bokeh and CA is not always fooling the AF logic.

Besides your explanation - which fits very well to your sample - I have another explanation:

For this, I have to look back at the slow but sharp FT 35/f3.5 lens. The 35mm lens focused veryyyyyy slow (1-3 seconds typically, often more), it was easy to observe the camera acting. It first made a sweep back and forward to find the sharpest distance. Then the focus drive made a big jump and locked at the exact position were the picture supposed to be sharp. I was wondering how the "jump" can be precise enough, but the 35mm lens always had perfect focus.

What if the 300mm lenses are controlled similar, but silent and fast. Maybe they make this jump but they miss the correct point because the macro lens changes the focus behavior quite a lot???

Christof

(P.S.:I am still thankful for your explanation of shutter shock, there was a lot of speculation going round and round. Your explanation as well as the pistol-grip trick made a lot sense for me. I screw my folded tripod under the camera to mimic the pistol grip mass and viola: the shutter shock with the 300mm lens has gone. Thanks!)

 

[Anders W]

CrisPhoto wrote:

Hello AndersW,

thanks for your interesting input. I think there are many reasons for back focus, and your example was well chosen. I even thought that my wristwatch sample fools the 300mm lens the way you describe. Because the metallic lines shows some contrasty bokeh. But on the other hand the 60mm lens has similar bokeh and never fails to focus correctly. So bokeh and CA is not always fooling the AF logic.

What you see with your 300 is certainly the same thing as I see with mine. It's not really a matter of the bokeh somehow fooling the AF system though. When I first encountered the problem, I was shooting targets that were not parallel to the sensor, just as your wristwatch. Consequently, something was in focus (as my brain would have it) but behind the point I wanted to focus on. So it looked as though the AF system had somehow missed the target.

That's not what happens though. Even if you shoot a target that is parallel to the sensor, as I did for the samples I posted, the AF system will set focus behind the target, based on what our brains consider perfect focus. However, based on the criterion the AF system uses (maximum contrast) it has set the focus exactly where it should be. There's really nothing wrong with that criterion or with the way the AF system uses it. It's the optics that misbehave when we force the lens to go outside its normal range of operation, causing massive amounts of spherical aberration and therefore a mismatch between maximum contrast on the one hand and what our brain considers maximally sharp on the other.

Besides your explanation - which fits very well to your sample - I have another explanation:

For this, I have to look back at the slow but sharp FT 35/f3.5 lens. The 35mm lens focused veryyyyyy slow (1-3 seconds typically, often more), it was easy to observe the camera acting. It first made a sweep back and forward to find the sharpest distance. Then the focus drive made a big jump and locked at the exact position were the picture supposed to be sharp. I was wondering how the "jump" can be precise enough, but the 35mm lens always had perfect focus.

What if the 300mm lenses are controlled similar, but silent and fast. Maybe they make this jump but they miss the correct point because the macro lens changes the focus behavior quite a lot???

No, I don't think the problems with our 300s when used with close-up lenses has anything to do with the AF mechanics. In both cases, the AF system can move pretty quickly to a certain location. The difference is that FT lenses designed for PDAF only (I didn't check whether the 35/3.5 belongs to the few that are designed to work with both PDAF and CDAF) can only move quickly, in big or small "jumps", whereas native MFT lenses can move as slowly as the body requires to find peak focus (peak contrast) with sufficient precision without having to stop the AF movement from time to time.

BTW: The problem with spherical aberration on the 100-300 when used with a close-up lens is not the same when used with extension tubes. While I still have some further testing to do, my long lens appears to work quite OK with the tubes. Of course, you don't get as much magnification with the tubes (only about 1:3 at most) but you do get a bit more than with the naked lens at 300 (1:5) and you get it at any focal length, combined with great flexibility in terms of working distance (up to about one meter at 300 mm and 1:3).

Have you tested your 75-300 with the tubes? If so, what are your results?

Christof

(P.S.:I am still thankful for your explanation of shutter shock, there was a lot of speculation going round and round. Your explanation as well as the pistol-grip trick made a lot sense for me. I screw my folded tripod under the camera to mimic the pistol grip mass and viola: the shutter shock with the 300mm lens has gone. Thanks!)

You are welcome. Glad to hear the grip helps. The appreciation is mutual. I have followed your earlier test reports with interest and your macro report prompted me to do what I should already have done quite a while ago: Test more systematically how my prospective macro solutions actually work (and not ;-) ). As I said, I still have some testing to do, but so far my results are entirely in line with yours. In brief, my preliminary findings are as follows:

75 and close-up lens: No good.

75 and extension tubes: No good.

40-150 and close-up lens: Pretty good

40-150 and extension tubes: Pretty good

100-300 and close-up lens: No good

100-300 and extension tubes: Pretty good

 

[CrisPhoto]

Hmmh, I will have a closer look at the 7-300 back-focus thing. I will focus manually and watch the contrast changing ...

And I should take a second look at the 75-300 with Meike rings. You seem to have good results ...

With Close-Up lens, it is similar or slightly better than the 40-150. But above 150mm it is barely useful. For macro work, the 40-150 would be sufficient. But I bought the 300mm lens for other purposes.

With Meike rings, the zoom ring changes also the focus distance, quite confusing when coming from a Close-Up lens with constant distance. Therefore I tested the rings with primary lenses only...

 

[jim stirling]

toxinoz wrote:

Useful post, thanks. I must say, I don't agree that your crab spider is crap. I prefer a macro prime to using a tele or zoom. Until recently that was the 45mm PanyLeica. Haven't had time to properly play with the 60mm yet. I usually use flash to get a small aperture, so greater DOF.

--
J White
Olympus user since OM1

I agree with the macro prime option it simplifies things , and i like simple , I also recently moved from the 45mm macro to the 60mm mainly for the extra working distance, though both are very good

GH3+60mm

 

[jalywol]

Anders W wrote:

You are welcome. Glad to hear the grip helps. The appreciation is mutual. I have followed your earlier test reports with interest and your macro report prompted me to do what I should already have done quite a while ago: Test more systematically how my prospective macro solutions actually work (and not ;-) ). As I said, I still have some testing to do, but so far my results are entirely in line with yours. In brief, my preliminary findings are as follows:

75 and close-up lens: No good.

75 and extension tubes: No good.

40-150 and close-up lens: Pretty good

40-150 and extension tubes: Pretty good

100-300 and close-up lens: No good

100-300 and extension tubes: Pretty good

This mirrors my experience. I have had the most fun (and best results) using the extension tubes on the 100-300mm, with the long end of the 14-140 coming in a close second (40-150 is pretty good too, but I prefer the OIS of the Panasonic lenses over the not great IBIS of the EPM2).

If you look at my gallery, most of the flower and insect shots from the beginning of this May were taken with the extension tubes on the 100-300 (and a few on the other two lenses). You should be able to see what I have coaxed out of the combo....and it's really a lot of fun to use.

-J