Panny 30mm macro practical on GM1?

OrdinarilyInordinate wrote:

How about trying this? Easy snap-on function to put on the existing lens. I'm not sure if it will be 100% compatible in terms of secure placement, but worth trying! Amazon's pretty good with returns.

http://www.amazon.com/Raynox-DCR-250-Super-Macro-Snap-On/dp/B000A1SZ2Y

http://www.amazon.com/Raynox-DCR-150-Snap-On-Macro-Lens/dp/B0007KS7D0/

I know a lot of people do swear by these lenses.  However, they look to be be designed for larger lenses - so shouldn't cause vignetting - but it looks like it would need an additional adapter ring to step it down to the 37mm diameter of the 12-32.

I actually already have a Canon 250D screw on close up lens, which I never use.  It might be worth getting a 37-52mm step up ring and try it on the 12-32.

TheClueless wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

LMNCT wrote:

Hi. I use the GM5 with 14, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35-100 and 42.5. I have also mounted the 45-175 and it balances just fine. The largest lens that I have mounted on the GM5 is the 100-300 and that lens also worked fine, but it did look a bit strange. The 30 is not too large on the GM5 and it delivers excellent close up shots.

I think there is a lot of preconception of what is cool to use on a small camera body. In fact the GM series bodies are just smaller bodied proper cameras and as such are perfectly capable of working with pretty well any M4/3 lens and most of the many other lenses that can be adpated to it.

Yet because it might not be thought to look cool does not mean that there is any problem in wearing socks with sandals - the socks can keep sandal wearing feet warm on colder days.

I have been using much larger lenses than the quite diminuative 30/2.8 macro for nearly two years now. This includes the 35-100mm f2.8 and the 42.5mm f1.2 Nocticron. I don't care if those that see me doing so think I am an insanely not-cool escapee from a mad-house. The combinations work extremely well and lens size coolness is not a necessity of life.

It's not cool, it's just one other way of getting around an exceptionally poorly handling (due to the compromiss for the size) camera... while entirely eliminating it's purported advantage at the same time. Still, gives you options.

Yes anti-cool I think like the little Nash Rambler of the song .... nobody sane would fit an engine that big in such a relatively small body.  "I'll show you that a "Cad-a-lack" is not a car to scorn ....", etc.

Impulses wrote:

Al Bond wrote:

OrdinarilyInordinate wrote:

How about trying this? Easy snap-on function to put on the existing lens. I'm not sure if it will be 100% compatible in terms of secure placement, but worth trying! Amazon's pretty good with returns.

http://www.amazon.com/Raynox-DCR-250-Super-Macro-Snap-On/dp/B000A1SZ2Y

http://www.amazon.com/Raynox-DCR-150-Snap-On-Macro-Lens/dp/B0007KS7D0/

I know a lot of people do swear by these lenses. However, they look to be be designed for larger lenses - so shouldn't cause vignetting - but it looks like it would need an additional adapter ring to step it down to the 37mm diameter of the 12-32.

I actually already have a Canon 250D screw on close up lens, which I never use. It might be worth getting a 37-52mm step up ring and try it on the 12-32.

If I understand the design correctly, the snap-on frame goes around the lens barrel or any protruding parts--not screwing into the filterthreading of the lens. The 150 might be easier to use in terms of available depth of field.

No, that's not correct, the clip on adapter goes into filter threads, it works essentially like a lens cap.

The achromat lends itself screws unto that clip on adapter and had a 43mm filter thread.

It is a bit like youg bloods buying a family sedan and screwing on bits to make it go faster.  This can become a serious obsession.  Eventually they will have spent enough money and effort to have  made it a cost alternative to a car designed with more performance off the car lot. Hopefully the rest of the car is right up to coping with the extra performance.  But of course the excercise is really in involvement and hopefully learning new skills rather than simply buying things premade and already in the box.

Snapping or screwing on mismatched accessory lenses is just a cheap way around buying the correct lens in the first place and at the same time taking a real punt on the performance.  Accessory front fitted lenses can be quite good but really have to be optically matched to the native lens on the camera to work at their best.

Impulses wrote:

Impulses wrote:

Al Bond wrote:

OrdinarilyInordinate wrote:

How about trying this? Easy snap-on function to put on the existing lens. I'm not sure if it will be 100% compatible in terms of secure placement, but worth trying! Amazon's pretty good with returns.

http://www.amazon.com/Raynox-DCR-250-Super-Macro-Snap-On/dp/B000A1SZ2Y

http://www.amazon.com/Raynox-DCR-150-Snap-On-Macro-Lens/dp/B0007KS7D0/

I know a lot of people do swear by these lenses. However, they look to be be designed for larger lenses - so shouldn't cause vignetting - but it looks like it would need an additional adapter ring to step it down to the 37mm diameter of the 12-32.

I actually already have a Canon 250D screw on close up lens, which I never use. It might be worth getting a 37-52mm step up ring and try it on the 12-32.

If I understand the design correctly, the snap-on frame goes around the lens barrel or any protruding parts--not screwing into the filterthreading of the lens. The 150 might be easier to use in terms of available depth of field.

No, that's not correct, the clip on adapter goes into filter threads, it works essentially like a lens cap.

The achromat lends itself screws unto that clip on adapter and had a 43mm filter thread.

It is a bit like youg bloods buying a family sedan and screwing on bits to make it go faster. This can become a serious obsession. Eventually they will have spent enough money and effort to have made it a cost alternative to a car designed with more performance off the car lot. Hopefully the rest of the car is right up to coping with the extra performance. But of course the excercise is really in involvement and hopefully learning new skills rather than simply buying things premade and already in the box.

Snapping or screwing on mismatched accessory lenses is just a cheap way around buying the correct lens in the first place and at the same time taking a real punt on the performance. Accessory front fitted lenses can be quite good but really have to be optically matched to the native lens on the camera to work at their best.

That's a fair comparison, if you're really focused on macro anyway. Otherwise something like the Raynox achromats can be cheaper, more portable, and even more versatile. I've seen excellent results around here with the Raynox paired with everything from a Sigma 60mm to a Panasonic 100-300... Seems useful matching isn't really such a tough task.

I agree that it is a cheap way to get additional perfomance if you have not enough need for or not enough funds to justify the real thing.  From my own limited knowledge an add on lens on front of an existing lens can work quite well with little degradation of underlying lens performance.  The caveat seems to be that it is best if the extension lens has been designed specifically with the camera's existing lens in mind.  Therefore the quality of assistance rendered can vary from very acceptable to not so good.  This contrasts with tele-extenders between lens and camera which will always degrade the boosted lens capture quality by their very nature of needing to disperse the lens rays to do their duty whilst a focal reducer adapter has a reverse effect and will always improve the capture quality because it concentrates the lens rays by nature of how it works.  In this way it works the magic of an extra stop of light, becomes a wider focal length lens by using the full surface are of a lens designed a shorter adapter, and even improve the resolution of the host lens. Therefore they all in general terms must work best when used with a better host lens.

Al Bond wrote:

Fri13 wrote:

How about a Kooka MFT extension rings kit, 10/16/21mm and then just take the 10mm extension ring in to use?

It will turn the 12-32mm to very good close-up objective with 0.44x magnification. If you would use a 16mm extension ring you can manage to get a 0.63x magnification.

Interesting. I haven't heard of this make of tubes before but they seem to be almost 1/2 the price of the Kenko ones. What is the interior surface of the tubes like? I know cheap tubes with a shiny surface can reduce contract and image quality.

The inner side is black velvet fabric. So doesn't reflect the light but can collect dirt/dust and especially get wet

I do have some cheap manual tubes but never use them because of the inability to change the aperture and, to a lesser degree, the lack of AF. I could try them to with the 12-32 to get an idea of how the set up would work.

The Kooka extension rings are great as they were cheap and seems to have optical quality good enough (the velvet coating) and passes electronic connections without problems.

The lock-in mechanism is little bit odd because it is a switch instead a button like in Olympus 1.4X teleconverter for 40-150mm and 300mm PRO. That is my only negative saying.