No Longer My Go-To Macro

Isabel Cutler wrote:

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!

comparing apples and oranges . if one really wants to compare the olympus 2.8/40-150mm it should be compared to the PL 2.8/4 50-20mm

H

DustyBin wrote:

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.

You mean those guys:

Isabel --

We obviously have very different tolerances for holding this lens.  Those exposed mounting ring studs tear. My. Hand. Up.

Just FYI, on a commercial food shoot (I create training materials for food, retail & health care back-of-house use) I refer to the 40-150mm PRO as my "pickle lens" because I can shoot something the size of a single pickle slice and fill the frame with glorious detail. That's the exact use case which started this whole thread in the first place.

johnpendleton wrote:

Isabel --

We obviously have very different tolerances for holding this lens. Those exposed mounting ring studs tear. My. Hand. Up.

So funny that those studs bother you - I barely feel them and I'm a real pill about things like that!

I don't have the lens on a camera body right now but I doubt that my hand even touches those studs!

My only complaint is about a couple of cheap rubber lens hoods I bought and as I had read in an Amazon review, the metal part of the hood that screws into the lens separates from the lens.  Furthermore when I unscrewed the hood the uv filter came off with it.  When I lookat the filter, which I had used on another lens I saw that it was dirty and tried to clean it with lens paper and a drop or so of lens cleaner.  I was absolutely unable to get off the dirt, so I ordered a new (Olympus) protective filter ($67?)  Guess I'll be using the included lens hood!

Isabel

Guy Parsons wrote:

That's just nuts, how can a 1:1 macro lens be replaced by a huge and cumbersome tele zoom lens that only goes to about 1:4.7?

Because the definition of the  term "macro" has become very flexible. Anything close up is a macro for many people now.

johnpendleton wrote:

...

So it's still a great lens but I lowered the rating because it's been seriously upstaged.

This where I disagree. A lens should be rated on its technical merit, not its focal length usefulness as this is highly subjective and subject dependent. Good luck doing true macro 1:1 ratio with the 40-150mm.