Olympus 40-150 f2.8 is fantastic

This is my favorite lens by far. It's so versetile and if I could just use one lens this would be it. After I bought the 300mm f4 I have not used the 40-150mm much because well for birds the 300mm is usually better.

So I attended a talk and a workshop about macro today. I will never look at macro photos the same way again after seeing how much work goes into some shots.

I don't have a macro lens (apart from the 12-50mm kit lens). So I decided to use the 40-150 with the 1.4 TC, I was really pleased with the results.

Here are some of the photos I took, all handheld 1 exposure. They are all full size so best viewed at 100%, (EDIT: some were to big to view at 100% so reszied them to width 1920):

All are excellent.

These are excellent 👍

I recently picked up a great Used Olympus 60mm macro and love it. These are the types of shots I like to do and I think the 40-150 with the 1.4x TC, when needed, would be a superior alternative due to the flexibility of the zoom and the narrower FOV at the long end which helps smooth busy background. But at the moment I simply cannot afford it ☹️

I've been perfectly happy with the mini 40-150 and kept telling myself I had no need for the pro version.  Now I want it.

Sdlv wrote:

Albert Valentino wrote:

. . . These are the types of shots I like to do and I think the 40-150 with the 1.4x TC, when needed, would be a superior alternative due to the flexibility of the zoom and the narrower FOV at the long end which helps smooth busy background. But at the moment I simply cannot afford it.

The 40-150+TC is a good lens for close-up photography of larger insects, as the OP's shoots show. But let's keep things in perspective. The 40-150+TC only achieves 0.3X max. magnification, while the 60mm macro goes to 1.0X. The biggest advantage of the 40-150+TC is in working distance at 0.3X -- around 20" (sensor to subject) -- versus around 12" for the 60mm.

Let's keep it in perspective, then;-) 0.3x on a m4/3 sensor is equivalent to a 0.6x on a full frame sensor. Which is quite respectable (meaning, you can get nice close-ups of larger insects - a 5 cm long beetle or butterfly will fill the frame). And if you don't need 16 or 20 mpix, because you view your photos on a screen, you can crop the image and easily get 1:1 in full-frame terms, with all the resolution you need.

Okapi001 wrote:

Sdlv wrote:

Albert Valentino wrote:

. . . These are the types of shots I like to do and I think the 40-150 with the 1.4x TC, when needed, would be a superior alternative due to the flexibility of the zoom and the narrower FOV at the long end which helps smooth busy background. But at the moment I simply cannot afford it.

The 40-150+TC is a good lens for close-up photography of larger insects, as the OP's shoots show. But let's keep things in perspective. The 40-150+TC only achieves 0.3X max. magnification, while the 60mm macro goes to 1.0X. The biggest advantage of the 40-150+TC is in working distance at 0.3X -- around 20" (sensor to subject) -- versus around 12" for the 60mm.

Let's keep it in perspective, then;-) 0.3x on a m4/3 sensor is equivalent to a 0.6x on a full frame sensor. Which is quite respectable (meaning, you can get nice close-ups of larger insects - a 5 cm long beetle or butterfly will fill the frame). And if you don't need 16 or 20 mpix, because you view your photos on a screen, you can crop the image and easily get 1:1 in full-frame terms, with all the resolution you need.

O.3x or 1:3 is often all I need, especially with m43 sensor. Although I have owned several macro lenses over the past 12 years, mostly with APS format, i rarely got that close which is  why i like this combo since flowers and butterflies, and the occasional bee shot, is what I go for so the reach is welcome. Before leaving Nikon for Fuji over four years ago, i used a Sigma 150  f2.8 macro with the Sigma 1.4x TC attached 80% of the time. It was a stellar combo on my Nikon D300, but lugging that tripod.... Overall I am happy with my newly acquired O 60mm macro and my Tamron 90mm f/2.8 adaptall macro

Stellar!

Quality and well taken images

MatLD wrote:

I've been contemplating buying the 60mm f2.8 macro for a while, and insects would be an interesting subject for me. I'm puzzled by your shots (very nice ones btw) as 210mm seems a very long focal length for macro.

I know almost nothing about macro : did you shoot at 210mm to get maximum magnification from your lens or because of the distance to the subject ?

In other words, would you rather use the 60mm f2.8 for these shots if you had it ?

either will work but the difference is how close you need to get for the same composition. The 40-150 combo gives you space which is useful reqch for insects like bees. To get the max mag out of the 40-150 combo you don't necessarily need to use the long end, that is to magnify distance subjects. So the 40-150 is a versatile solution, whereas a dedicated macro is a less flexible specialized tool. I can highly recommend the 60mm macro, especially when on sale or a deal on a good used one.

They'll get you closer with no loss of quality.

MatLD wrote:

I've been contemplating buying the 60mm f2.8 macro for a while, and insects would be an interesting subject for me. I'm puzzled by your shots (very nice ones btw) as 210mm seems a very long focal length for macro.

I know almost nothing about macro : did you shoot at 210mm to get maximum magnification from your lens or because of the distance to the subject ?

In other words, would you rather use the 60mm f2.8 for these shots if you had it ?

I have just tried the 60mm macro for a brief few minutes so I can't say anything about it. But for this type of shot I'm pretty confident that it is EASIER to use the 40-150 + TC.

Most of the shots I took was at 210mm, I wanted to fill as much as possible of the sensor. Some images were taken at less, like the blue flower at 180mm.

The hover fly is cropped to about half the area of the original image.

I think tele lens macro and real macro are very different in nature. This suits me so much better coming from the birding side of things.

MatLD wrote:

Albert Valentino wrote:

MatLD wrote:

I've been contemplating buying the 60mm f2.8 macro for a while, and insects would be an interesting subject for me. I'm puzzled by your shots (very nice ones btw) as 210mm seems a very long focal length for macro.

I know almost nothing about macro : did you shoot at 210mm to get maximum magnification from your lens or because of the distance to the subject ?

In other words, would you rather use the 60mm f2.8 for these shots if you had it ?

either will work but the difference is how close you need to get for the same composition. The 40-150 combo gives you space which is useful reqch for insects like bees. To get the max mag out of the 40-150 combo you don't necessarily need to use the long end, that is to magnify distance subjects. So the 40-150 is a versatile solution, whereas a dedicated macro is a less flexible specialized tool. I can highly recommend the 60mm macro, especially when on sale or a deal on a good used one.

Hum, I thought the minimum focusing distance was the same on all the range with the 40-150mm pro, and also did not change with the TC on. That would mean that you would indeed have the max magnification at 210mm.

In any-case, I understand that some reach can be useful, but is the 60mm too short ? Is 210mm too long ? (for things like bees, ants, flies and spiders that is)

Not sure what you mean by 210mm being too long? If the TC was 2x I would be shooting at 300mm if I could fit the scene in the sensor. It all depends on how large of a scene you aim to capture.

When we are down to the size of ants and smaller the macro lens will be more useful I'm sure.