M.Zuiko 40-150mm F/2,8 lens + M.Zuiko MC-14 Teleconverter for Close-up Photography

A few years ago, after trying many lenses, I’ve settled on the M.Zuiko 60mm Macro F/2,8 as my favourite lens to take shots at butterflies. For three years, it was the only lens used for that purpose.

Last month, I’ve acquired the teleconverter M.Zuiko MC-14 and I’ve decided to give a try of the M.Zuiko 40-150mm F/2,8 + M.Zuiko MC-14 for close-up photography.

I was so pleased with the result that this combo has replaced the M.Zuiko 60mm Macro F/2,8 as my favourite gear to take shots at butterflies.

Why?

In order to get a butterfly and its environment, I might need to frame about 20cm of nature. Since a 60mm lens and a 210mm lens have different angles of view, the camera has to be at a distance of 60cm with a 60mm lens, and at 250cm for a 210mm lens (note: these figures are approximative).

For the same brightness (F/5,6), the ’Simple DoF’ applet of my iPhone tells me that on a µ4/3 cameras, a 60mm lens gives a DoF of 1,5cm while a 210mm lens gives a DoF of 2,2cm.

So it easier to get a butterfly in focus with a 210mm lens.

But what about sharpness and bokeh?

My subjective feeling is that the M.Zuiko 60mm Macro is sharper than the combo.

The bokeh? I’ve always like the 60mm’s creamy bokeh. But the combo is in a different league: it’s not cream, it’s butter.

In a nutshell, if you’re willing to lose a wee bit of sharpness, the M.Zuiko 150mm + teleconverter MC-14 is a very good alternative.

In order to judge by yourself, hereunder are examples of the typical shots obtained with them:

Zebra Lingwing Butterfly

Laparus Doris Butterfly

Hypolimnas Bolina Butterfly

Eumaeus minyas Butterfly

All the butterflies shots published so far:
http://jpmartel.quebec/category/entomologie/ (skip the Frech Text)

JeanPierre Martel wrote:

A few years ago, after trying many lenses, I’ve settled on the M.Zuiko 60mm Macro F/2,8 as my favourite lens to take shots at butterflies. For three years, it was the only lens used for that purpose.

Last month, I’ve acquired the teleconverter M.Zuiko MC-14 and I’ve decided to give a try of the M.Zuiko 40-150mm F/2,8 + M.Zuiko MC-14 for close-up photography.

I was so pleased with the result that this combo has replaced the M.Zuiko 60mm Macro F/2,8 as my favourite gear to take shots at butterflies.

Why?

In order to get a butterfly and its environment, I might need to frame about 20cm of nature. Since a 60mm lens and a 210mm lens have different angles of view, the camera has to be at a distance of 60cm with a 60mm lens, and at 250cm for a 210mm lens (note: these figures are approximative).

For the same brightness (F/5,6), the ’Simple DoF’ applet of my iPhone tells me that on a µ4/3 cameras, a 60mm lens gives a DoF of 1,5cm while a 210mm lens gives a DoF of 2,2cm.

So it easier to get a butterfly in focus with a 210mm lens.

But what about sharpness and bokeh?

My subjective feeling is that the M.Zuiko 60mm Macro is sharper than the combo.

The bokeh? I’ve always like the 60mm’s creamy bokeh. But the combo is in a different league: it’s not cream, it’s butter.

In a nutshell, if you’re willing to lose a wee bit of sharpness, the M.Zuiko 150mm + teleconverter MC-14 is a very good alternative.

In order to judge by yourself, hereunder are examples of the typical shots obtained with them:

Zebra Lingwing Butterfly

Laparus Doris Butterfly

Hypolimnas Bolina Butterfly

Eumaeus minyas Butterfly

All the butterflies shots published so far:
http://jpmartel.quebec/category/entomologie/ (skip the Frech Text)

Same thing with me 😀 95% of these photos were taken with 40-150mm Pro + MC-14 https://www.flickr.com/photos/princecody/albums/72157647525749104

For a given sensor size, when using different focal lengths if the distance is adjusted to equalize the FOV (or the magnification), then the DOF should be the same (unless the distance is close to the hyoerfocal distance).

It appears that you came up with a greater DOF for the 210mm thru an error in the distance you plugged in for the 210mm to get the same  magnification as the 60mm. It should be 210 rather than 250cm.

M (FOV) = FL/Distance = 60mm/600mm = 210/2100.

At 210cm and 5.6 a 210mm FL gives the same DOF as the 60mm at 60cm which is 1.6cm according to the Cambridge in Colour online calculator that I am using.

Weegee wrote:

Si tu veux, tu peut me repondre en Francais.

Thanks but I’ll give my answer in English to be sure that everyone can be part of the discussion.

On your personal list of lenses, you state that you have both the 40-150 f/4-5.6 and the newer 40-150 f/2.8 lens. You give the f/4-5.6 five stars yet the f/2.8 only gets 4.5. I would have thought that it would be the other way around.

That’s a very good question. The M.Zuiko 40-150mm R and the M.Zuiko 40-150mm F/2,8 are both very sharp lenses. If there is a difference about sharpness, it’s very small.

Beside price, weight, size, and being splashproof or not, the main difference is the fact that one is four times brighter at 150mm (F/2,8 vs F/5,6).

In bright daylight, both lenses do the job perfectly well. But under low-light situation, the Pro version is clearly the winner.

Then why did I’ve given a 4,5-star rating to the Pro version? It’s because I hate to carry that lens for a long period of time. A couple of hours, that’s OK. Over that, no.

Contrary to what I thought at the beginning, it’s not because of its weight. It’s because of its diameter near the mount. Why?

My favourite way to carry that lens is to hold it like I’d carry an hammer (by the wooden shaft). My hands are larger than the smallest part of the Pro lens.

With the MC-40 Teleconverter, the latter stretches the smaller diameter by 1 cm: that’s just enough to let me have a good grip on that lens with the thumb and middle finger.

That’s why I’ll probably always use the combo (M.Zuiko 40-150mm + MC-14) hereafter.

Also, did you try the f/4-5.6 with the MC-14?

The MC-14 Teleconverter expands inside a lens at its mount. The teleconverter can be used with the Pro version because a cavity exists at its base. I don't know if the one at the back of the R version is deep enough.

Officially, the MC-14 can be used with just two lenses: the M.Zuiko 40-150mm F/2,8 and the M.Zuiko 300mm F/4.

Unofficially, it can be used with any legacy lenses that need a thick adapter. This Summer, I'll have fun trying it with some of the legacy lenses that I have.

Very nice butterfly pictures...where did you find the butterflies?

woodybrown wrote:

For a given sensor size, when using different focal lengths if the distance is adjusted to equalize the FOV (or the magnification), then the DOF should be the same (unless the distance is close to the hyoerfocal distance).

It appears that you came up with a greater DOF for the 210mm thru an error in the distance you plugged in for the 210mm to get the same magnification as the 60mm. It should be 210 rather than 250cm.

M (FOV) = FL/Distance = 60mm/600mm = 210/2100.

At 210cm and 5.6 a 210mm FL gives the same DOF as the 60mm at 60cm which is 1.6cm according to the Cambridge in Colour online calculator that I am using.

Yes, for same size on the sensor the DOF is the same.

But you forgot the background magnification in you calculation. As the background is magnified around 3 times more, the bokeh can be quite "buttery" compared to the 60mm lens.

That's another reason to prefer a tele lens for macro: either you have more bokeh or (if you close the aperture) the same bokeh but more DOF which can not be enough for macro work.

Christof

SteveOttwa wrote:

Very nice butterfly pictures...where did you find the butterflies?

Like a few Botanical Gardens in North America, the one in Montréal has an event called "Butterflies Go Free" (from February 18 to April 24, 2016).

It's a very popular event:
http://jpmartel.quebec/2016/02/20/papillons-en-liberte-2016/ (skip the French text)
http://jpmartel.quebec/2015/04/02/papillons-en-liberte-2015/ (skip the French text)

For the record, my comment was strictly "focussed" on DOF which the OP himself recognized as important in close focus work if one wants to avoid the need for focus stacking.

I certainly agree, however, that even though increased DOF would not be reason to go to the longer focal length for close focus work, there are several other compelling reasons to do so.

I agree with the OP that first among these benefits would be the longer working distance  with the longer FL which can be critical for shooting live objects but also helps avoid casting shadows on the subject.

The longer focal length also provides a narrower field of view behind the subject so that small shifts in camera angle can allow for more selective choice of background field of view and the increased shooting distance alters perspective to compress the apparent depth of the background.

The increased lens pupil resulting from using the longer focal length at a given fstop does increase background blurring which, as you point out, is accentuated further by the increased magnification of the background.

Ditto !  Shooting the macro with telephoto lens bring you much closer and composition via zoom lens than fixed macro lens.  I utilize Olympus 14-150mm f/4-5.6 as dual purpose macro and telephoto lens. And, I sold Four-Thirds Oly 50mm f/2 in favor of m4/3 Oly 14-150mm.

woodybrown wrote:

It appears that you came up with a greater DOF for the 210mm thru an error in the distance you plugged in for the 210mm to get the same magnification as the 60mm. It should be 210 rather than 250cm.

M (FOV) = FL/Distance = 60mm/600mm = 210/2100.

At 210cm and 5.6 a 210mm FL gives the same DOF as the 60mm at 60cm which is 1.6cm according to the Cambridge in Colour online calculator that I am using.

My observation was empirical. Your comment is more scientific and more precise.

So thanks for your valuable comment. I appreciate.

Very nice images Jean Pierre...  How did the autofocus perform in the Botanical Gardens?

I have had mixed results with autofocus when photographing birds with my 40-150 PRO 2.8 with both my E-M10 in and my E-M5 II..especially in lower light situations..  Im on the fence about getting MC-14.. But your post us making it a lot more difficult to resist the temptation

I need to make the trip to Montreal very soon or I'll miss the opportunity to photograph the butterflies

Robert

Some lovely butterfly shots there!
I also use the lens to shoot butterflies unless I can get really close and want eye detail then I would use the 60mm macro. I also use the 300mm f4 now for more skittish butterflies but the 40-150 with TC allows for enough distance in most cases. It's a great all-round lens IMHO and even thou I am playing more with the 300 f4 lately I would never stop using the 40-150 pro or replace it with 300mm for a fair bit of use..

regards,
Vas

PhotoguyCanada wrote:

Very nice images Jean Pierre... How did the autofocus perform in the Botanical Gardens?

Not perfectly. Often, I have to touch the LCD screen in order to tell the camera that I want it to focus there.

I have had mixed results with autofocus when photographing birds with my 40-150 PRO 2.8 with both my E-M10 in and my E-M5 II..especially in lower light situations..

My experience is identical to yours.

I'm on the fence about getting MC-14.. But your post us making it a lot more difficult to resist the temptation

I wouldn't go back using the M.Zuiko 40-150mm without the MC-14 teleconverter, mainly because it makes it easier for me to transport that telezoom (explained in an earlier message in this thread).

vass wrote:

I also use the lens to shoot butterflies unless I can get really close and want eye detail then I would use the 60mm macro. I also use the 300mm f4 now for more skittish butterflies but the 40-150 with TC allows for enough distance in most cases. It's a great all-round lens IMHO and even thou I am playing more with the 300 f4 lately I would never stop using the 40-150 pro or replace it with 300mm for a fair bit of use..

And since you're often using a flash, your shutter speed is fast enough to be able to catch bIF (butterflies In Flight), something that I'm totally unable of.

I went to your Flickr site and I envy your extraordinary shots:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/14869355@N07/albums/72157664031234561/with/24549276972/

JeanPierre Martel wrote:

PhotoguyCanada wrote:

Very nice images Jean Pierre... How did the autofocus perform in the Botanical Gardens?

Not perfectly. Often, I have to touch the LCD screen in order to tell the camera that I want it to focus there.

I have had mixed results with autofocus when photographing birds with my 40-150 PRO 2.8 with both my E-M10 in and my E-M5 II..especially in lower light situations..

My experience is identical to yours.

I'm on the fence about getting MC-14.. But your post us making it a lot more difficult to resist the temptation

I wouldn't go back using the M.Zuiko 40-150mm without the MC-14 teleconverter, mainly because it makes it easier for me to transport that telezoom (explained in an earlier message in this thread).

Thank you for the comments JP .. good to know

romangeber wrote:

Very impressive closeup capabilities. Surprising for such a long lens that's not even trying to be a "macro".

Certainly a big plus not having to bring a macro just to make sure something smallish fills the frame. Right now, I almost always bring a Macro lens, just in case.

The duo M.Zuiko 40-150mm+M.Zuiko MC-14 Teleconverter is not only useful to take shots of objects in the distance (for birding, for example); it's also useful to improve the bokeh of the closer objects that we want to shoot at.

For example, for flowers (skip the French text)...
http://jpmartel.quebec/2016/06/04/les-fleurs-darbres-fruitiers/
http://jpmartel.quebec/2016/05/29/dernieres-photos-de-magnolias/
http://jpmartel.quebec/2016/05/20/saison-des-magnolias/
http://jpmartel.quebec/2016/08/06/hemerocalles-2016-viii/

...or butterflies: