can 50-200 mm with ex-25 have good macro capability?

How close do you need to get? The 50-200/ex 25 makes a nice close up lens and the fl 50 is sufficient for lighting.

It doesn't get as close as the 70-300, or reach as far, but the image quality is better.
From last year. All done with 50-200/ ex 25

Hope this helps
--
JimB
Bug Whisperer

Anything is possible except what you tell yourself isn't.

This shot was taken with the 50-200 and ex25 combo. To me the 50-200 is such a versatile lens and so sharp. Also combine it with the ec14 and you have the length of the 70-300 but faster and sharper. Using the lens by itself is even better.

The 50-200+EX25 can do a very good job with closeups, and give you longer working distances from the subject at longer focal lengths than the normal macro lenses..

So can the 70-300..

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/gallery/4365022_qosMV#P-2-15

and either of these zooms will be more versatile than a macro lens for other subjects if you need more versatility for your Dollar/Euro/whatever...even as fine a lens as the 50mm f2 is. The ideal situation would be to have one of everything!

The 70-300/ex 25 Does a good job too.

The 70-300/ ex 25 combo gets you closer, but I still feel the 50-200 gives you more detail and punch. It's the trade off along with price.

A used 50-200 non swd is not much more than a new 70-300
--
JimB
Bug Whisperer

Anything is possible except what you tell yourself isn't.

Gidday Bikas

bikas wrote:

Well, 70-300 also looks good!!! But everyone seems to favor 50-200 mm
though! So do you guys think I should better wait and have 50-200 mm
rather than 50mm macro ( + 70-300 mm may be ) ???? Is non-swd version
any different than new swd one? I have e-520 by the way!

I have the (old) 50~200 and a mate has the (new SWD) 50~200. As far as we can both tell, there is nothing between them except:

1) His new version has a bigger lens hood that doesn't seem to fit in anything (much bigger, different shape). Since flare was never a problem with this lens, it is hard to see why Olympus have made it about 1cm longer and wider.

2) I think that the SWD has a "circular" aperture, with curved aperture blades, which is supposed to give better, smoother "bokeh". Neither of us can tell if this is so or not.

Since both seem to focus about as quickly, both are optically excellent (the lens diagram looks absolutely identical to me, and the specs and MTF charts also look identical), it is very hard to say that one can be preferred over the other. Having said that, no doubt the new one is an improved version, even if merely 'tweaked'.

Here is a "mug shot" taken with my E510 and 50~200 from about 3m away in a pretty dark living room (with the on-board flash, but no focus assist). The only way I can see more detail than this is by holding the mug in my hand and looking at it with a 5x magnifying glass ... this is an OoC JPEG, SQ, 1024x768, 1:2.7 compression @ ISO400 and 200mm

I am very happy with my non-SWD version.

[edit] BTW, I also have the f2/50 macro. A macro lens is designed differently from a close focusing lens, in that the plane of focus remains flat with a macro lens rather than becoming somewhat curved as you get close to the subject. This can make a big difference to the end result, as against using a non-macro lens with an extension tube or teleconverter. [end edit]

Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php

Bird Control Officers on active service.

The 50-200 + EX-25 is more versatile, since it has zoom range and greater working distance. On the other hand, the 50mm + EX-25 is probably a bit sharper, and easier to carry. I have both and like them both depending on circumstance.

50-200 + EX-25

50mm macro + EX-25

bikas wrote:

Hi,

After getting tired of trying to shoot ever elusive bees and
butterflies with my 40-150 mm kit lens, I am now seriously
contemplating about buying olympus 50 mm macro lens. Btw, I have
already ordered ex-25 and will get delivery tomorrow. However, I have
one question. I am planning to get 50-200 mm lens sometime in the
future and so just wanted to ask whether 50-200 mm ( with ex-25 )
would work as good macro lens or not! If it works good enough, then I
may not need to get 50 mm macro and it would also be easy for me to
choose 50-200 mm over 70-300 mm. Or should I go for 50 mm macro &
70-300 instead? or only 70-300 mm with ex-25? so much indecision in
my life

I had the EX-25 and 50-200mm and rarely used it compared to the 50mm, and eventually sold the EX-25 (hi Jimmy!). For my style of photography (walk around photography, taking photos as I see them, but not doing big setup shots to get a specific bug, and my macro shots were mostly flowers/bees and not the smaller creatures).

The big problem with the EX-25 is the zone of focus is fairly narrow. You have to learn to slow down, and move the camera back and forth until you find where the focus is near enough and then manually focus the lens (auto focus may work if you have an area of contrast in the focus point and bright enough light, but Olympus only specs the 50mm to auto focus with the EX-25). This table from Olympus shows what the focus range is for various lenses (they haven't updated the lenses for the new lenses yet):
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/lens/dea/products/lens/ex-25/index.asp

Another minor problem is the bokeh (quality of the unfocused areas) of the old 50-200mm is not as good IMHO as the 50mm.

With the 50mm, I can just point the camera at the thing, and 1/2 press the shutter button to do an auto focus. However, being a 50mm lens, you often times need to be closer to the subject than you would with a 200mm lens, and it depends on whether you will spook your subjects (the 35mm macro requires you to be even closer).

The 70-300mm is supposed to be fairly close focusing, and can get you in the ballpark for things like bees and flowers, but the image quality of the 70-300mm is not as good as the 50-200mm.

Sigma has three macro lenses for 4/3rds cameras (24mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2.8, and 150mm f/2.8). The 105mm and 150mm seem to get good reviews providing you have a good copy (Sigma does have a perceived problem with sample variation). The 105mm lens is $200 cheaper, weighs 1 lb instead of 2, and takes the same 58mm filter as your 40-150mm lens, but you have to be somewhat closer to your subject than the 150mm lens.

You wont regret it.

The 70-300 only gets use as a test lens for me, and will probably head to the B/S forum this weekend. ( the 8mm fish eye is calling my name, I blame Bill. lol)

There is nothing wrong with it, in fact for the price, it is a great lens. It just doesn't give me the punch and detail that the 50-200 does. Of course it helps that I have the ec 1.4 and 20 to get the same reach.

Other things to consider are, the 50-200 is brighter and weather resistant.

As for the 50mm macro, it is a lens you have to shoot to appreciate. Sharp is a understatement. I use it for macro more often than any other set up.

You might consider buying used. The old 50-200 goes for $6-700, the 50mm for around $350 used. I hope to get $300 for my 70-300.

I use to buy all my gear new at full retail in a high end shop, now I realize that I could have twice as much glass for what I paid.
--
JimB
Bug Whisperer

Anything is possible except what you tell yourself isn't.

normsmith wrote:

What sort of distance from the subject can you get with the 70-300
and 25mm converter

You can get VERY close, as I was in shooting many of these more recent images..

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/gallery/4365022_qosMV#P-1-15

At 300mm, you can stand back a good distance yet still be able to focus close. I'd say most of what I do is probably in the middle part of the zoom range.

also

does it retain auto focus?

Yes. At any focal length, the depth of focus at any focal length with the EX25 mounted is, like it also is when used with the 50-200 f2.8-3.5, relatively thin. The best thing to do is zoom to get the subject close to being in focus, then actually use the AF to complete the job, and it's easy to tell. As you zoom the subject goes from being completely out of focus, to popping into and then going back out of focus.