Close up shots with the 12-60mm

[MacroLunchtimes]

Hi all,

I have the G-Vario 45mm f2.8mm Macro lens on my G80 but having used it a lot, am now thinking I don't need a true macro lens. As good as it is, its hard with such a shallow DOF to create genuine decent insect images.

I am looking at the 12-60mm as a all round alternative, can anyone provide some close up insect shots with this lens.

I'm not after macro, just decent enough to identify and produce clear images.

I may even consider going back to adding a Raynox to front of 12-60mm if needed.

Thanks in advance

 

[Advent1sam]

Hi all,

I have the G-Vario 45mm f2.8mm Macro lens on my G80 but having used it a lot, am now thinking I don't need a true macro lens. As good as it is, its hard with such a shallow DOF to create genuine decent insect images.

I am looking at the 12-60mm as a all round alternative, can anyone provide some close up insect shots with this lens.

I'm not after macro, just decent enough to identify and produce clear images.

I may even consider going back to adding a Raynox to front of 12-60mm if needed.

Thanks in advance

Which 12-60?

 

[Sranang Boi]

I use the 12-60mm with a pair of extension tubes (10mm and 16mm). But I prefer using the 45-175mm with those extension tubes instead because I can set the camera further away from the subject. DOF issues are solved with the use of focus bracketing if I can't get away with a smaller aperture.

 

[MacroLunchtimes]

Ah yes the Leica f2.8-4

 

[Advent1sam]

Ah yes the Leica f2.8-4

With a bit of cropping and the the pin point af option you can get very close with the 12-60 2.8-4. Obviously with an achromat and the like you should be able to get very very close. Some CA does appear wide open and zoomed in very close at 60mm, but my 2.8 Olympus 60mm macro is currently redundant, for what I need like above, the 12-60 is more than enough.

Apologies there is no exif on first dragon flys'

 

[MacroLunchtimes]

That looks good enough for what I want it for.

Are these AF or MF?

 

[Advent1sam]

That looks good enough for what I want it for.

Are these AF or MF?

AF amazingly enough, pin-point setting

 

[MacroLunchtimes]

Thanks to Advent1sam I am now £565 lighter in the pocket!

12-60mm just ordered!

However hoping to offset that with sells of my 45mm f2.8 macro and 12-32mm, both of which have just gone onto ebay.

Cheers for advice.

 

[Advent1sam]

Thanks to Advent1sam I am now £565 lighter in the pocket!

12-60mm just ordered!

However hoping to offset that with sells of my 45mm f2.8 macro and 12-32mm, both of which have just gone onto ebay.

Cheers for advice.

I think you will love it, it really is a very flexible lens

 

[M_Zack]

Hi all,

I have the G-Vario 45mm f2.8mm Macro lens on my G80 but having used it a lot, am now thinking I don't need a true macro lens. As good as it is, its hard with such a shallow DOF to create genuine decent insect images.

I am looking at the 12-60mm as a all round alternative, can anyone provide some close up insect shots with this lens.

I'm not after macro, just decent enough to identify and produce clear images.

I may even consider going back to adding a Raynox to front of 12-60mm if needed.

Thanks in advance

I know you asked for insect shots, but I only have close-ups of flowers. Hope it gives you a rough idea at least. Images are OOC jpgs.












Might as well show this spiderweb too, cause why not..

 

[Crawford Henry]

I use the 12-60mm with a pair of extension tubes (10mm and 16mm). But I prefer using the 45-175mm with those extension tubes instead because I can set the camera further away from the subject.

Those are exactly my lenses and tubes as well as reasons. I did use the close-focusing Panny 42.5mm f1.7 on the 16mm tube with the cute and handy little Lumix GX9 (and the GX7 before it) for this shot of a pussy willow bud on a twig that has stood in a Chianti bottle for years, lit by two daylight LED bulbs in a table lamp for 1 sec at f20 (not quite f22) using ISO 400. This is +1.3 steps, brightest in the bracket, but still underexposed and therefore a tiny bit noisy, with the twig in background softer than I wanted (should have used focus stacking on the Lumix G9) so I helped it some in RAW, then used Topaz DeNoise and Sharpen apps and Topaz Clear PS plugin, along with a few touches of the PS sharpening brush to get it from before to after (see images). I should probably have used one of the zooms for more working distance, but I love the tiny egg-sized 42.5mm (chosen as a dpreview top M43 lens and dwarfed by my beloved old 85mm f1.8 Nikkor) on the Lumix GX9. I have been reluctant to part with the cherished manual 200mm f4 AIS IF Micro-Nikkor on a Vello adapter that has additional macro focusing capability, but the 45-175 reaches almost as far, zooms, and has AF, AE, and OIS, all linked via the tubes, along with being MUUUUCH smaller and lighter, so the Nikkor goes to a full-frame-toting relative. As a bug-chaser, I love how so many Panny lenses focus so close without being officially designated macro lenses, especially the two zooms in question.







.

 

[Sranang Boi]

Nice piece of work. I am also glad to know that I am not the only one using the 45-175mm for applications that it wasn't intended for.

By the way, on the denoise issue, try photo stacking instead. If it's a stationary object you can get away with blue murder without worrying about noise even at some very high ISO.

 

[shmelej]

Thanks to Advent1sam I am now £565 lighter in the pocket!

12-60mm just ordered!

However hoping to offset that with sells of my 45mm f2.8 macro and 12-32mm, both of which have just gone onto ebay.

Cheers for advice.

For macro with this lens, instead of extension tubes, use achromat lens. It will give you more distance between the lens and the object. Also, when closing diaphragm, you will have less diffraction. At the ratio 1:1, the diffraction is already very obvious with extension tube at diaph 1:8. With an achromat, you can go to 11 and to 13. That gives a welcome DOF for insects.

As achromat, everybody mention Raynox, but the Raynox diameter is 43mm, much smaller than most of our M43 lens. The result is a considerable coma aberation at corners of the image.

This 12-60 zoom has a 62mm filter diameter. I strongly advice you to try a Marumi 200 Achromat (+5 diopter). It is available with a 62mm diameter that will fit directly on your zoom. And the resolution of Marumi is better than Raynox, much less coma aberation, less chromatic aberation, more regular accuracy on the whole picture area, even in corners.

Available here https://www.amazon.co.uk/Marumi-DHG-52mm-Achromat-Lens/dp/B003DIT2QY?th=1

Beside, my favorite combination is the Oly EM1 MkII and Pana zoom 45-175 with a Marumi 200. That gives a long run for the shyest insects. But when I go hiking with the minimum load, I take a GM5 with the 12-60 3.5-5.6 zoom and the same Marumi plus the tiny tiny Oly M3 flash.


Pierre Rasmont

 

[DrHook59]

I have a Marumi 300 I have not tried yet on my 46mm diameter lenses. I typically use the Olympus MCON-PO1 rather than my Raynoxes just for the reasons you outline above. So, a quick purchase of a 46-58 step-up ring and I'll tell you all in a couple of days time if the Marumi is a worthwhile change.

Thanx for the heads-up, shmele!