4/3 Rumors: Olympus to announce 30mm macro lens

Just conjecturing . . . This 30mm macro is likely to have magnification abilities that exceed 1:1 (the limit of the 60mm); 2:1 to 4:1 wouldn't be difficult to achieve.  (If it doesn't go beyond 1:1, why introduce it.)  It will also be fast, and for these magnifications would most have its own build-in lighting.  Working distance would be short, but those shooting inanimate objects would probably love it.

During the film era, Olympus was a macro leader, with 7 lenses I know about: Three standard macros (50/3.5, 50/2, 90/2) plus 80/4 for bellows or tubes (0.5x - 2x), 135/4.5 for bellows or tubes (infinity to 0.5x+), 38/2.8 for bellows or tubes (1.7x-6.7x), and 20/2 for bellows or tubes (4.2x - 16x).  Plus, Oly had a host of other things, including a great telescoping auto-extension tube that I use with some of these old lenses on my OM-Ds.  So, we haven't even scratched the surface regarding the potential for new digital products in m4/3 macro.

Now, if we could get a long lens like the 135mm to go with the 30mm . . .

. . . Steven

Photo Pete wrote:

bluevellet wrote:

Wait for the full specs. You don't know anything except it is some sort of macro lens and it's 30mm. you don't know if it has any special features or if it's made to be a bargain lens or conversely, some sort of Pro prime.

Oly used to have a 50mm macro and a 30mm with their 43 DSLRs.

By now, you people have to get used to overlapping lenses between Olympus and Panasonic, especially when they're not uber expensive niche lenses.

Can't think of any special features I would want in a macro that the existing lens hasn't got.

The point of my post though is why 30mm when 60mm is already so compact?

I can: half the camera to subject distance at the same magnification as the 60 mm. This is especially useful for table top photography of such things as coins, stamps, figurines and even circuit boards or larger items where getting a nice, sharp flat field image might be easier with 30mm instead of 60mm. Some people use macros not necessarily or exclusively for close up work, but also because macros generally have much flatter field of focus with less distortion than non-macro lenses.

Ya'll need to stop thinking that Olympus is just pulling stuff out of their hats, and realize they have a lot of pros who shoot a wide variety of genres who give them feedback and suggestions.

The dentist will benefit more from a 100mm than 30mm.

• You dont want to push a uncleaned lens close to patients mouths, as you would need to clean that lens after every patient.
• You most often work with a posterior tooths and that means you need to go deep to the mouth for an macro. So they would need to suck the 30mm lens.
• You want a distance so you dont block the dental light, it is higly focused powerful light.

I had done photography about dentists works for a while to learn what works there and what doesnt. And 30mm macro is not going to be a one.

And like with portraits, 45mm is great and if wanted to get flexibility then 12-40mm Pro is the best when combined with 60mm.  And 100-120mm would be a best macro.

12-40mm is great because you get the portrait works for the smiles and all the stuff while on table.

And more pleasing for perspective!

A 30mm will distort perspective for 1:1 like a 17mm would for tight portrait filling the frame.

It does have its places now and then when wide angle perspective is required like a miniature models or such, but not really for many as 60mm or 150mm would be.

I can tomorrow/day after tomorrow.

Rich K wrote:

Well, there's compact, and then there's compact. The 60mm, when extended, isn't exactly dainty.

The 60 mm has internal focus and its physical length doesn't increase the closer you focus.

And, as you point out, it depends on the other capabilities of the (yet to be announced) lens. Might be good as a 60mm FF equivalentt, and therefore multi-use. We'll just have to wait and see.

My 60 mm Micro Nikkor was very useful, so I don't see how a 30 mm Macro would be any less useful. The range of the 60 mm Macro  lens is not always needed.

Photo Pete wrote:

Why?

They already have the tiny 60mm macro.

Sounds like it will be 30mm f3.5. Won't even double as a wide aperture prime.

It's getting more puzzling why they spent time on developing this lens with every new bit of information we find out about it.

It has a very high magnification ratio of 1.5 to 1 which to me implies the kind of lens designed for copy stand kind of work.

I also have the ZD 35/3.5 macro and still use it occasionally when I truly need something at or near 1:1 or very flat field (copy work). It's very difficult to use such a short macro in the field, longer is going to be better there. If the 30 is similarly priced then I can see it fitting a niche, given the 35 was amazingly cheap considering the performance. Optically it's flawless; the bug is very slow focusing.

Cheers,

Rick

SkiHound wrote:

It has a very high magnification ratio of 1.5 to 1 which to me implies the kind of lens designed for copy stand kind of work.

1.5:1 or 1.25:1 ?

1.25 after I looked again. Getting old and can't remember the difference between .25 and .5. Alas.