Do I need a MACRO lens?

I have Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 on my GH4 camera and the photo attached is taken with it.

I'm wondering I would need MACRO 30mm F2.8 lens in addition.

If so, what could be improved with MACRO lens for such photo?

Well, the main advantage a macro lens offers is that you can achieve higher magnification. If you're happy with the magnification you currently have, then there's little point in getting a macro lens.

Close focus ability is a consideration in the design of a macro lens, more so than other lenses. So, you might consider minimum focus distance if you want a non-macro lens to serve this way.

I have the Olympus 60mm macro and the AF is amazing, as is the detail it reveals. I don't think I've heard a single complaint although many want a longer working distance.

Other considerations: what are you shooting?  larger objects (entire flowers), smaller (pistil/stamens) or really small (insects).

All these have impacts on if you need a macro lens, and also what Focal Length, which translates to working distance:  I wouldn't recommend the 30 if you are after insects, bees, etc.

As a bit of a 'toe in the water' you might try the Raynox 150 for $70.  One thing you'll soon find is that Depth of Field can be very thin and focus very twitchy.

And at the other end of that focus range is, of course, you.

You are using a wide angle, and of course with one of those you can get much closer, even without a macro, than say a 135mm. With a macro you would get even closer, and would say be able to take a photo of a single flower, or part of it.

And just as with non-macro lenses, there are characteristics of say a macro focusing longer lens, which you might want to use if you want a shot of a single flower, but say it's  a meter away from you. Or perhaps you wanted a photo of an insect on that flower; get too close and it will fly away or bite your nose. So you use a 100mm macro. Those lenses are also sometimes preferred by people taking portraits too. And the distance you can be away also comes into play if you have to use artificial lighting, or a tripod (pretty necessary with most macro shooting).

There can be some downsides with macros, like focusing ability, sharpness, max aperture, etc. But having one can give you a new range of possibilities. I've managed to find some nice macro primes with manual focus to use with adapters, that didn't cost me a whole bunch more than even a macro adapter like the Raynox. I didn't find the manual focus much of an issue with close up stuff, and they are quite fun to use. You can walk around in an otherwise dull setting and find all kinds of stuff to photograph that you otherwise wouldn't pay attention to, even if you don't get into 1:1 shots.

As above, the main benefit of a macro lens is that you can get greater magnification of the subject. If you just want to take pictures of a whole flower, then you don't really need a macro lens. If you fancy taking shots of small insects, or parts of flowers (for example) then a macro lens is essential.

I first tried macro photography using Raynox converter on the 50mm lens for my Sony Nex5. More recently, I invested in the M43 system partly so I could use the Olympus 60mm lens and I have to say it's one of the best lenses I've used and is a huge amount of fun. Of course, as to whether it's worth the investment depends on how much macro photography you think you might do. It does work well as a standard 60mm lens as well, which I find useful for candid portraits.

agaoo wrote:

I have Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 on my GH4 camera and the photo attached is taken with it.

I'm wondering I would need MACRO 30mm F2.8 lens in addition.

If so, what could be improved with MACRO lens for such photo?

To do real macro shots with the Lumix 30mm, you have to be really close to your subject (flower, insect, etc.) with the risk of having the shadow of the lens in your frame.

However, any µ4/3 lens -- included the Lumix 12-35mm -- can be used for close-up photography.