No Longer My Go-To Macro

Personally I just tired of all the crap that is being posted on this sight way too often. Lenses are made for different purposes, and just because you are able to get  somewhat of a macro shot with other lens does not mean that you are actually doing macro work. There is a big difference, and if you are not aware of this, then too bad for you. Go back and shoot the same scene or flower or insect with the real macro lens, and then look at the difference, but first you need to know something about "how to do macro photography"

Many people say that the notion of ‘macro’ (where the image of the subject on the sensor is at least as tall as the way it is in real life) is outmoded and close-up photography should be synonymous to macro photography.

I disagree.

If we accept the traditional meaning of macro photography, nothing replaces the M.Zuiko 60mm F/2,8.

However, to do close-up shots of insects and butterflies, the M.Zuiko 40-150mm F/2,8 (with the M.Zuiko MC-14 teleconverter) has replaced the M.Zuiko 60mm F/2,8 as my favourite lens :
http://jpmartel.quebec/2016/04/12/m-zuiko-40-150-mm-mc-14/ (skip the French text)

Hello Henry

I'm interested in what supplementary lenses you are using for Macro work. In particular for the Panny 12-35.  If you can share any of your experiences with these it would be great.

Mark

I still love my 60, and I love my 40-150 f/2.8. But most of the close ups that I've taken lately have been with the 300 f/4 + MC-14. One lens certainly can't replace the other, but I'm not always after 1:1 and I think the 300 combo is 1:0.6, which is nice for flowers and larger insects. It's also very nice to be almost 60" away from the subject instead of right on top of it.

Yeah, here's a piece of information I might have left out: I'm shooting bees. This is where getting right up on 'em with the 60mm Macro set at 1:1 might not be the best practice. I've even gotten right on top of black widows with the 60mm Macro, but some critters prefer you use the long telephoto.

johnpendleton wrote:

Yeah, here's a piece of information I might have left out: I'm shooting bees. This is where getting right up on 'em with the 60mm Macro set at 1:1 might not be the best practice. I've even gotten right on top of black widows with the 60mm Macro, but some critters prefer you use the long telephoto.

This year, I've been carrying a Panasonic FZ1000 bridge camera with 1" sensor on neighborhood walks. I take lots of flower photos on those walks and zooming to 300-400mm lets me get adequate subject size without walking into other people's yards. Sample gallery with bees

FZ1000 pictures - including bees

I took the pictures in the next gallery with an m43 body and Oly 60mm macro after getting unsatisfactory results with the FZ1000. (Too little magnification, too vulnerable to blown highlights and the sensor/lens combo was not sharp enough with 1 image pixel per scvreen pixel.)

neighborhood flower closeups - bees too

I use a Panasonic G7 and Oly 60mm macro lens for flower and insect closeups including bees, wasps and other insects. I normally work at 13" from sensor to subject which is about 1:2 magnification. No problem working that close to bees. For a really small subject, I get close to 1:1 magnification.  I've used 90, 105 and 150mm macro lenses and don't really miss them much.

A prime macro lens is a superb tool for closeup work.  A longer focal length zoom is a fine complement but not a replacement.

Agree, sounded strange to me that comparison.

JeanPierre Martel wrote:

Many people say that the notion of ‘macro’ (where the image of the subject on the sensor is at least as tall as the way it is in real life) is outmoded and close-up photography should be synonymous to macro photography.

I disagree.

If we accept the traditional meaning of macro photography, nothing replaces the M.Zuiko 60mm F/2,8.

However, to do close-up shots of insects and butterflies, the M.Zuiko 40-150mm F/2,8 (with the M.Zuiko MC-14 teleconverter) has replaced the M.Zuiko 60mm F/2,8 as my favourite lens :
http://jpmartel.quebec/2016/04/12/m-zuiko-40-150-mm-mc-14/ (skip the French text)

Jean-Pierre, can you tell me whether you took those photos hand-held, or on a tripod? They're very nice, like the 'look' and rendition a lot.

johnpendleton wrote:

Yeah, here's a piece of information I might have left out: I'm shooting bees. This is where getting right up on 'em with the 60mm Macro set at 1:1 might not be the best practice. I've even gotten right on top of black widows with the 60mm Macro, but some critters prefer you use the long telephoto.

Which are the spiders that jump? Is it Funnel Webs? Or,  is that a myth? I suspect there are some critters where distance might be welcome!!

I've just acquired a 60 macro (arriving today) and will compare with my 40-150, but suspect they'll be used for different purposes.  I really like the idea of getting real macro shots and trying out focus stacking.

DustyBin wrote:

johnpendleton wrote:

...

Which are the spiders that jump? Is it Funnel Webs? Or, is that a myth?

If you're expecting a reply from user "johnpendleton" you might be out of luck. This thread is years old, and it looks like he hasn't participated in DPR for months.

Regards,
Sterling
--
Lens Grit

DrHook59 wrote:

JeanPierre Martel wrote:

http://jpmartel.quebec/2016/04/12/m-zuiko-40-150-mm-mc-14/ (skip the French text)

Jean-Pierre, can you tell me whether you took those photos hand-held, or on a tripod?

Please forgive me for taking so long to reply to your message.

99,99% of my pictures are taken with a hand-held camera.

At the botanical garden located near my appartement (where these butterflies were shot), tripods are not allowed. Monopods are allowed. However, the only users of monopods that I’ve seen are people using big and heavy reflex cameras (like Canon and Nikon).

Bright μ4/3 lenses allow us to get fast shutter speeds. And fast shutter speeds means sharp pictures with half-held cameras. Specially when we take into account that Olympus has the best IBIS technology in the World.

Recently, I’ve published a little slideshow created with pictures taken in Lisbon. I’ve not made a formal announcement about it on this forum because that slideshow is not that extraordinary.

However, it contains a video clip (between 0:51 and 1:17) shot inside a very shaky tramway. So shaky that I’ve almost fell on my back. Yet, if you focus on cars and people seen on the street, the clip is almost as taken with a steadicam. That shows the power of modern image stabilization:

https://jpmartel.quebec/2018/07/17/sud-alfama/ (skip the French text)

That’s why I almost never use tripods. They are useless for the kind of pictures that I’m taking (no waterfalls, for example).

They're very nice, like the 'look' and rendition a lot.

Thanks. But I have no merit; I’ve just pushed the button.

Thanks for pointing out the comparison with the 40-150 f2.8 Pro, which I have. I've been thinking of the 60mm Macro and will now weigh in your very relevant comments. I would disagree with your lowering of the rating of the 60mm because of your justifiable preference for the 40-150.  The usefulness of the 40-150 doesn't reduce the inherent quality and capability of the 60 mm Macro.  For persons who cannot afford the 40-150, this could be misleading, unintentional as it appears.

lmktex wrote:

Thanks for pointing out the comparison with the 40-150 f2.8 Pro, which I have. I've been thinking of the 60mm Macro and will now weigh in your very relevant comments. I would disagree with your lowering of the rating of the 60mm because of your justifiable preference for the 40-150. The usefulness of the 40-150 doesn't reduce the inherent quality and capability of the 60 mm Macro. For persons who cannot afford the 40-150, this could be misleading, unintentional as it appears.

Macro is macro, I used the 60mm macro yesterday; a very good lens, small, and pretty cheap as good lenses go.

Hey, thanks for replying, but keep in mind that's a very old comment. I'd say my small-object shooting since then has been split equally between the two, depending on the setting.

I take the 60mm mostly outside when shooting garden stuff for my girlfriend, the garden writer -- except when it involves bees and wasps, which are valuable pollinator subjects.

I use the 40-150mm PRO on food and product on-site shoots because I need the flexibility a zoom lens offers and the lighting setups usually put me at such a distance from the subject that I need the longer focal length as well as the zoom movement.

Primes are great when you can zoom with your feet; fast zooms are essential in tight studio/client spaces. I can't say enough good things about the original trio of M.Zuiko f/2.8 PRO zooms as journeyman commercial lenses. Although the 60mm is always in the bag, just to be safe.

I just received my 40-150 f/2.8 from B&H yesterday and I couldn't be more pleased.  Those little protrusions on the barrel that bother some people cause me no grief at all - and I am a real pill about things like that.  I had been looking at the lens last week and talked myself out of it, but when I visited B&H a few days ago the price had gone down $150.  That was a good incentive.  The focal range is perfect for shooting the birds that come to the feeders outside my windows.

Just got a couple of rubber lens hoods (that's the way they were offered on Amazon - a set of two for under $10.  I'd rather use them than the behemoth of a hood that comes with the lens.

I, too, love the 60 macros and it will sit on an em10 ii, read to use when I need something smaller to carry around.

It's been raining (doesn't that always happen when you get a new camera or lens?) so I haven't put the new lens through it's paces, but it did capture some turkeys this afternoon through my front door double-paned skylight.  They like to clean up the fallout from the bird feeder.

Isabel

Isabel --

Lovely turkey shots, the vertical in particular. It took me a minute to think about what protrusions you were referring to, and then I realized you were probably talking about the tripod-mounting ring posts. If I might suggest, consider getting comfortable with keeping the tripod ring on the lens and either rotating the mounting foot to the lens top or letting it sit in your focusing (left) hand. When you need it for actual tripod mounting you'll find it balances SO much better on the lens foot than mounted at the camera body. If I've mis-read the situation please feel free to correct me.

I'm also a fan of the sliding lens hood, but maybe that's just me -- I like lens hoods for protection as much as flare blocking. I've mentioned in other reviews of this lens that I dropped it on concrete from chest-high once, and the lens hood and the mounting ring took all the abuse -- just a few minor scratches. The lens itself was unharmed by the impact. Just something to keep in mind.

johnpendleton wrote:

Isabel --

Lovely turkey shots, the vertical in particular. It took me a minute to think about what protrusions you were referring to, and then I realized you were probably talking about the tripod-mounting ring posts. If I might suggest, consider getting comfortable with keeping the tripod ring on the lens and either rotating the mounting foot to the lens top or letting it sit in your focusing (left) hand. When you need it for actual tripod mounting you'll find it balances SO much better on the lens foot than mounted at the camera body. If I've mis-read the situation please feel free to correct me.

I'm also a fan of the sliding lens hood, but maybe that's just me -- I like lens hoods for protection as much as flare blocking. I've mentioned in other reviews of this lens that I dropped it on concrete from chest-high once, and the lens hood and the mounting ring took all the abuse -- just a few minor scratches. The lens itself was unharmed by the impact. Just something to keep in mind.

Thank you, John.

Those little protrusions are of no consequence.  I always avoid tripod mounts unless I need them.  Any extra weight is unappreciated.

I didn't order the 40-150 for a long time because I thought it would be too heavy, but it's much lighter than my Panasonic 100-400!

While the image quality is excellent I'm finding the 150 isn't quite long enough for some of my through-the-window bird shots.  Having the 100-400 it seems silly to get a teleconverter for the 40-150 and frankly, I think my 100-400 locks focus faster than the 40-150.  I expect I will be using the 40-150 for event photography more than birds, which I photograph much more fequently!

Have been using a cheap folding rubber lens hood to keep my fingers of the lens front.  I do have to sit the camera on a book when I rest the cameraon a surface so the rubber doesn't get deform.  I will take off the hood when I pack the camera in a bag.