Reading mode: Light Dark

Macro?

Go to last post
Robert Kinsell said:
Is there a true macro lens that is native for M43? Or am I just an idiot in not finding one?
Click to expand...
The only true (1:1) macro lens that is native to the m43 format is the Panasonic Leica 45mm f2.8 lens. It is a wonderful lens but is priced according to its quality rather than to its desirability. I got a special deal on my copy and have never regretted it.

There are other macro lenses in the rumour/rumor mill for 2012 launch, but nothing has been confirmed as yet.
 
Sadja Herzog said:
Agree completely with BigBarney. My only complaint with it is insufficient working distance (for 1:1 macro, you have to be 5-6" from subject).
Click to expand...
The other thing about macro shooting is that manual focus is usually preferable to auto-focus, so look for manual macro lenses, like the Nikon 55mm f2.8, or the Olympus 50mm f2. They are MUCH cheaper than the Pana/Leica 45mm, but only 1:2 macro.

I have a Nikon 60mm f2.8D ($300 eBay), a 1:1 macro lens. it's pretty bulky (I had to buy it a monopod) and the focus takes some practice to learn to control because it's a hybrid AF/MF lens. Still, the results are excellent, nice color, extremely sharp and it's nice to have a bit more reach for shooting crawly things.

A couple of shots with my GH2, I think at f8, overcast day, using a monopod.
For the grasshopper I was lying on the ground, handheld.











 
The 45mm 2.8 is native to m43, but best of luck autofocusing at close range. The best AF macros have a hard time super-close and the PL45 is not one of the best.

IMO you are better off with a semi-native lens for four-thirds cameras such as the Zuiko 35mm or the 50mm 2.0. In fact, scratch that. Just buy the 50mm 2.0. It is a legendary lens. Its image quality stands up against the best lenses from any system. Autofocus is a bear, but at macro distances you should be manually focusing anyway. It will auto-adjust aperture and give correct EXIF information back to the camera.
 
jeffharris said:
The other thing about macro shooting is that manual focus is usually preferable to auto-focus, so look for manual macro lenses, like the Nikon 55mm f2.8, or the Olympus 50mm f2. They are MUCH cheaper than the Pana/Leica 45mm, but only 1:2 macro.
Click to expand...
A 1:2 Macro lens folowed by a 2X magnification (because of crop factor)
Doesn't it become a 1:1 macro lens for that image circle size ?
 
Pho3NiX said:
jeffharris said:
The other thing about macro shooting is that manual focus is usually preferable to auto-focus, so look for manual macro lenses, like the Nikon 55mm f2.8, or the Olympus 50mm f2. They are MUCH cheaper than the Pana/Leica 45mm, but only 1:2 macro.
Click to expand...
A 1:2 Macro lens folowed by a 2X magnification (because of crop factor)
Doesn't it become a 1:1 macro lens for that image circle size ?
Click to expand...
That makes sense. It probably does.
 
Tim F 101 said:
The 45mm 2.8 is native to m43, but best of luck autofocusing at close range. The best AF macros have a hard time super-close and the PL45 is not one of the best.
Click to expand...
From the 45mm 2.8 review:

"On Panasonic G-series models, the 45mm becomes capable of something that's simply not possible with any DSLR system - genuinely usable autofocus when shooting macros. These cameras allow you to choose an extremely small AF point and place it wherever you like within a large area of the frame (although not at the extreme borders). This means you can tell the camera to focus precisely where you want within your composition, and it will just do it without any fuss - it's a very useful tool indeed."
 
Pho3NiX said:
A 1:2 Macro lens folowed by a 2X magnification (because of crop factor)
Doesn't it become a 1:1 macro lens for that image circle size ?
Click to expand...
Not exactly,according to the recent DPR article on macro magnification, it's just the ratio of the size of the subject vs the size of the image projected onto the sensor, so a 1:2 macro lens will still be 1:2 regardless of sensor size.

However, because of the crop on m4/3 you're magnifying the central region, so it would be the same view as a 1:1 macro lens on full frame. Kind of like how a 50mm lens on m4/3 will give you a 100mm field of view, but is still a 50mm lens.
 
Other folks have been not as sanguine about AF at macro distances, but for all I know that may be due to unreasonable expactations. AF is just not the best way to handle macro. Clearly YMMV.
 
Andy Crowe said:
Andy Crowe said:
The 45mm 2.8 is native to m43, but best of luck autofocusing at close range. The best AF macros have a hard time super-close and the PL45 is not one of the best.
Click to expand...
From the 45mm 2.8 review:

"On Panasonic G-series models, the 45mm becomes capable of something that's simply not possible with any DSLR system - genuinely usable autofocus when shooting macros. These cameras allow you to choose an extremely small AF point and place it wherever you like within a large area of the frame (although not at the extreme borders). This means you can tell the camera to focus precisely where you want within your composition, and it will just do it without any fuss - it's a very useful tool indeed."
Click to expand...
Yea, right. Try telling the bug not to move while you choose the focus point on the screen. It will be laughing all the way to the next flower.

This is like the guy I saw manually focusing, with the camera on a tripod, birds that were flying about from tree to tree. By the time he was ready, the bird was gone.

Allan
 
Allan Brown said:
Yea, right. Try telling the bug not to move while you choose the focus point on the screen. It will be laughing all the way to the next flower.
Click to expand...
That takes less than a second on any of the touchscreen m4/3 cameras
Allan Brown said:
This is like the guy I saw manually focusing, with the camera on a tripod, birds that were flying about from tree to tree. By the time he was ready, the bird was gone.
Click to expand...
So your point is manual focussing is faster, or slower?

Any 45mm owners care to chime in with how fast it can find macro focus?
 
Andy Crowe said:
Andy Crowe said:
Yea, right. Try telling the bug not to move while you choose the focus point on the screen. It will be laughing all the way to the next flower.
Click to expand...
That takes less than a second on any of the touchscreen m4/3 cameras
Andy Crowe said:
This is like the guy I saw manually focusing, with the camera on a tripod, birds that were flying about from tree to tree. By the time he was ready, the bird was gone.
Click to expand...
So your point is manual focussing is faster, or slower?
Click to expand...
AF won't get the shot, either.
Andy Crowe said:
Any 45mm owners care to chime in with how fast it can find macro focus?
Click to expand...
It's not so much how fast the auto-focus focuses as it is WHERE it decides to focus. It may focus on what you want. .09th of a second does you no good if it doesn't focus where you want. So, manual focus is a way to get around it.

Two huge components of macro shooting are patience and luck.

I've also found that longer lenses work better as far as not scaring little critters away. So, my next lens will probably be a 105mm macro.
 
jeffharris said:
I've also found that longer lenses work better as far as not scaring little critters away. So, my next lens will probably be a 105mm macro.
Click to expand...
Back in film days I spent time experimenting with various lenses and some tiny spiders in my garden. They were chosen as subjects as they seemed to be easily spooked.

The ideal lens was around 100mm (or longer) as the working distance was big enough to keep that big eye of the lens away from the little critters and they behaved naturally. Any closer (like 55mm Nikon macro) and they acted differently, and get close enough (35mm Oly macro) they just plain ran for cover.

So it does not matter what sensor size, the 100mm lens working distance is what is really needed to keep nervous insect subjects calm.

In my case I fiddle with a Nikon fit 100/3.5 Cosina macro lens on E-300 and on E-PL1, it is 1:2 but comes with a 1:1 adapter lens. Lens is a bit tragic at f/3.5 but who uses that aperture for macro anyway? Lens also seen as Soligor, Phoenix and other such names. http://www.photozone.de/pentax/368-cosina-af-100mm-f35-macro

Regards............ Guy
 
jeffharris said:
It's not so much how fast the auto-focus focuses as it is WHERE it decides to focus. It may focus on what you want. .09th of a second does you no good if it doesn't focus where you want. So, manual focus is a way to get around it.

Two huge components of macro shooting are patience and luck.

I've also found that longer lenses work better as far as not scaring little critters away. So, my next lens will probably be a 105mm macro.
Click to expand...
Yep bang on Jeff and well said. I know a lot like AF, but its that selective focus point that is up in the air. You cannot get better selective focus than by the human eye.

AF might work for smaller ratios, but not 1:1 and above IMO. At around 2:1 - 3:1 DOF even at F/22 is measured by hairs ;)
jeffharris said:
Two huge components of macro shooting are patience and luck.
Click to expand...
Not so much luck, more stubbornness :)

Danny.
...........................

m4/3 Small birds and legacy teles
http://www.macrophotos.com/avian/avian.html

m4/3 macro
http://www.macrophotos.com/g2macro

Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.
 
Guy Parsons said:
Back in film days I spent time experimenting with various lenses and some tiny spiders in my garden. They were chosen as subjects as they seemed to be easily spooked.

The ideal lens was around 100mm (or longer) as the working distance was big enough to keep that big eye of the lens away from the little critters and they behaved naturally. Any closer (like 55mm Nikon macro) and they acted differently, and get close enough (35mm Oly macro) they just plain ran for cover.

So it does not matter what sensor size, the 100mm lens working distance is what is really needed to keep nervous insect subjects calm.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't the Panasonic 45mm f2.8 or the Olympus 50mm f2 have roughly the same working distance as a 100mm lens on FF?
 
jeffharris said:
AF won't get the shot, either.
jeffharris said:
Any 45mm owners care to chime in with how fast it can find macro focus?
Click to expand...
It's not so much how fast the auto-focus focuses as it is WHERE it decides to focus. It may focus on what you want. .09th of a second does you no good if it doesn't focus where you want. So, manual focus is a way to get around it.
Click to expand...
Again according to DPR being able to place a tiny focal point anywhere and having the accuracy of CDAF means that autofocus actually works with this lens, I don't think they'd say that if it didn't.

We could really do with a 45mm owner confirming how good the autofocus works..?
 
Andy Crowe said:
Andy Crowe said:
Back in film days I spent time experimenting with various lenses and some tiny spiders in my garden. They were chosen as subjects as they seemed to be easily spooked.

The ideal lens was around 100mm (or longer) as the working distance was big enough to keep that big eye of the lens away from the little critters and they behaved naturally. Any closer (like 55mm Nikon macro) and they acted differently, and get close enough (35mm Oly macro) they just plain ran for cover.

So it does not matter what sensor size, the 100mm lens working distance is what is really needed to keep nervous insect subjects calm.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't the Panasonic 45mm f2.8 or the Olympus 50mm f2 have roughly the same working distance as a 100mm lens on FF?
Click to expand...
No, a 100mm lens always has the same working distance attempting 1:1 macro no matter what the sensor size is. The 45mm and 50mm have a shorter working distance. Just the frame width captured varies with different sensor sizes when at 1:1.

Another penalty is that internal focus lenses shorten their focal length as they focus closer, thus making the working distance worse than expected. My rather nice Nikon 105mm macro lens went to 79mm focal length at closest focus. Older/simpler style focus lenses do not change their focal length so retain a better working distance at 1:1.

Regards.......... Guy
 
Guy Parsons said:
jeffharris said:
I've also found that longer lenses work better as far as not scaring little critters away. So, my next lens will probably be a 105mm macro.
Click to expand...
Back in film days I spent time experimenting with various lenses and some tiny spiders in my garden. They were chosen as subjects as they seemed to be easily spooked.

The ideal lens was around 100mm (or longer) as the working distance was big enough to keep that big eye of the lens away from the little critters and they behaved naturally. Any closer (like 55mm Nikon macro) and they acted differently, and get close enough (35mm Oly macro) they just plain ran for cover.

So it does not matter what sensor size, the 100mm lens working distance is what is really needed to keep nervous insect subjects calm.

In my case I fiddle with a Nikon fit 100/3.5 Cosina macro lens on E-300 and on E-PL1, it is 1:2 but comes with a 1:1 adapter lens. Lens is a bit tragic at f/3.5 but who uses that aperture for macro anyway? Lens also seen as Soligor, Phoenix and other such names. http://www.photozone.de/pentax/368-cosina-af-100mm-f35-macro
Click to expand...
I used a Nikon 35-135mm macro zoom on an FM2 back in the day. I've tried a Nikon 6T on Panasonic 14-140mm, but still have to get very close.

My Nikon 60mm is actually quite good at 120mm equivalent. It's still too close for some little beasties. Although I find that time of day makes a difference. So, late afternoon shooting (better light, too) helps. I've used it with my 2x Nikon teleconverter (TC-201) and it gives me enough distance to not scare even the most skitterish of critters, like butterflies and frogs. The problem is that I seem to lose about 2 stops and shooting in the woods or on overcast days, I need as much light as I can get. Also, with the lens, M4/3 adaptor and teleconverter the thing is long, heavy and pretty unwieldy, even with a monopod. This is where Danny's stubbornness comes into play. ;-)

So, I've been looking at 100mm+ macro lenses. A 200mm equivalent would be great and work as a good moderate telephoto, too. The M4/3 2x crop can be a very good thing at times!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top