Lens suggestion

I thought I should point out that since the watches are larger than a four-thirds sensor, true macro mode shouldn't be needed for those.  Photographing  the "parts" on the other hand...

And if they aren't actually macro, in lieu of focus stacking, can't you illuminate them very brightly and use a smaller aperture to increase depth of field?

mount evans wrote:

I thought I should point out that since the watches are larger than a four-thirds sensor, true macro mode shouldn't be needed for those. Photographing the "parts" on the other hand...

And if they aren't actually macro, in lieu of focus stacking, can't you illuminate them very brightly and use a smaller aperture to increase depth of field?

True that a magnification of 1X is likely not needed.

But a macro lens will still be needed if the magnification required is more than 0.3X, and may still be the most economical choice for magnifications greater than 0.15X.

Among the non-macro M43 lenses the 12-40/2.8 and both 12-60s have a maximum magnification 0.31X, the 100-400 has a maximum magnification of 0.5X (but is very expensive)

There are a few more that have a maximum magnification between 0.2X and 0.3X

Some of the M43 lenses have a maximum magnification of only 0.1x

I use mine on (old) coins from countries around the globe when I travel.  It's around $224 today, though I bought mine for less during one of the black fridays a few years back.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1281429-REG/olympus_v312040bu000_m_zuiko_digital_ed_30mm.html

Eric Nepean wrote:

mount evans wrote:

I thought I should point out that since the watches are larger than a four-thirds sensor, true macro mode shouldn't be needed for those. Photographing the "parts" on the other hand...

And if they aren't actually macro, in lieu of focus stacking, can't you illuminate them very brightly and use a smaller aperture to increase depth of field?

True that a magnification of 1X is likely not needed.

But a macro lens will still be needed if the magnification required is more than 0.3X, and may still be the most economical choice for magnifications greater than 0.15X.

Among the non-macro M43 lenses the 12-40/2.8 and both 12-60s have a maximum magnification 0.31X, the 100-400 has a maximum magnification of 0.5X (but is very expensive)

There are a few more that have a maximum magnification between 0.2X and 0.3X

Some of the M43 lenses have a maximum magnification of only 0.1x

If the OP likes to fiddle rather than spend money, there are cheap plastic extension tubes for m4/3 that provide electronic connections, so autofocus lenses will work with them, that allow you to get closer to the subject that you could otherwise and thereby increase magnification, using the lenses you already have.  Usually they are sold in a set of two, 10mm and 16mm, though I see some sets go longer.  I would recommend starting out with a small amount of extension, and see how things work out.  Some people even use extension tubes on lenses that already claim to be macro lenses; I cannot speak to the technical details of doing that.

Wow, there are classier versions for sale cheap now than when I got mine.  These have what actually looks like a micro four thirds flange on them--mine were all plastic and really cheesy:

Automatic Extension Tube for Olympus Panasonic Micro Four Thirds M4/3 System Camera Lenses 10MM 16MM (Metal Auto Focus Plastic Body)

I have started a thread over in the Macro forum asking which m4/3 lenses "play nice" with extension tubes:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64002043

addlightness wrote:

I use mine on (old) coins from countries around the globe when I travel. It's around $224 today, though I bought mine for less during one of the black fridays a few years back.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1281429-REG/olympus_v312040bu000_m_zuiko_digital_ed_30mm.html

I see one on eBay used for $200 Buy-It-Now, can't speak to the condition or the reputation of the seller.

Holy Moly! There is a used four thirds Zuiko 50mm f/2 macro for sale in Canada for $195 Canadian (Approx. $143 US) Buy-It-Now.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Near-Mint-Olympus-Digital-50mm-F2-Zuiko-Macro-ED-Lens-for-Original-4-3/362993646914?epid=99694529&hash=item54841b7d42%3Ag%3As8gAAOSw9fZevEt%7E&LH_ItemCondition=3000

If I didn't already own one, and I wasn't broke, that is what I would get! Now, with that lens you will need a four thirds to micro four thirds adapter, which will bump up the cost.

By itself, it has a maximum magnification of 0.5x; you can use cheap extension tubes on the micro four thirds end of the adapter to boost that if you need to. 26mm of extension gets you this:

Capitalism is an Illuminati conspiracy

If I'd known what I was doing at the time, I'm sure the results would have been better.

Acydstyne wrote:

I apologize for that i really thought a decent lens csn be had for a couple hundred did not realize how expensive lenses are.

Thank you for your suggestions! Will look into these options

Bassam Guy wrote:

Acydstyne wrote:

Thank you Gents for the quick reply. A couple things:

- i only have the kit lens that came with the camera. 12-42

-just searched for the lenses mentioned, $400+ is definitely out of budget right now. I could do maybe $200-250, open to buying second hand.

once again thank you

B&H: Olympus 30 $225, Lumix 30 $300.

Read my post below. Budget for LIGHTING!

BTW: It would have been more courteous to state your budgetary constraints in the OP. Look at all the trouble others went to trying to help only to find out that your budget is limited to $250.

I still haven't seen your response to my comment about lighting. Do not overlook lighting. You'd do better with your kit lens & extension tubes and good lighting than a good lens and poor lighting.

Earlier today, I coincidentally watched a video with an intro with close up watch photography. The photographer freely admitted he was inexperienced with watch photography and it wasn't really pertinent to the rest of the video. However, there was glare from the watch glass, and I realized, you'd probably need a good polarizing filter to eliminate/reduce glare.

So, with your budgetary constraints, perhaps a good quality legacy macro lens and cheap adapter. You'll have to use manual focus but watches stay pretty still and you'll need the extra precision of careful manual focus. Fortunately, with MFT, you can adapt good quality legacy macro lenses from Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Minolta, Olympus, etc.

Others have suggested extension tubes, which would definitely be your cheapest option. The 12-42 kit lens that you mentioned is not made by Panasonic or Olympus. Both companies make 14-42s. I don't know the Panasonic but I had the Olympus and it would probably not give you great results. Olympus makes a 12-40 PRO which is sometimes sold as a kit lens for higher-end models. If you have that lens then you already have the lens that you need.

Acydstyne wrote:

Thank you Gents for the quick reply. A couple things:

- i only have the kit lens that came with the camera. 12-42

-just searched for the lenses mentioned, $400+ is definitely out of budget right now. I could do maybe $200-250, open to buying second hand.

once again thank you

Any manual macro on an adapter. Make sure the adapter is adequately baffled. I have an MD adapter that isn’t, and photos using it have no contrast to speak of.

Builder467 said the following in the Macro forum:

"The typical extension tube set for m4/3 is 10mm+16mm. Add them to anything at 40mm to 45mm and you'll reach about 1:1.5 at minimum focus. A lot of the short and long zooms cover that range.

Before getting a macro lens, I used them a lot with both a 14-45 and 45-200. I still use them now and then. They don't work well with short primes.

That's about the least expensive way to get into macro."

So, get a cheap set of "automatic" extension tubes (i.e., the ones that have electrical contacts) and try them with your kit zoom at 42mm. Bam, macrophotography for $29.95.  The tubes do not magnify per se, but they allow you to get closer to your subject that you could before and still focus.  If the quality isn't great, maybe try getting a lens in the 40mm or longer range that you were thinking of getting anyway, and try it with the extension tubes.

Finally, there's the legacy lenses. They need to be completely manual focus of course, but there are a lot of possibilities. Older, MF lens might be cheap. Once you have a m4/3 adapter for that lens, you can use the extension tubes on the m4/3 end. Again, maybe inquire in the Macrophotography forum about old manual focus lenses that are good for macros.

mount evans wrote:

Builder467 said the following in the Macro forum:

"The typical extension tube set for m4/3 is 10mm+16mm. Add them to anything at 40mm to 45mm and you'll reach about 1:1.5 at minimum focus. A lot of the short and long zooms cover that range.

Before getting a macro lens, I used them a lot with both a 14-45 and 45-200. I still use them now and then. They don't work well with short primes.

That's about the least expensive way to get into macro."

So, get a cheap set of "automatic" extension tubes (i.e., the ones that have electrical contacts) and try them with your kit zoom at 42mm. Bam, macrophotography for $29.95. The tubes do not magnify per se, but they allow you to get closer to your subject that you could before and still focus. If the quality isn't great, maybe try getting a lens in the 40mm or longer range that you were thinking of getting anyway, and try it with the extension tubes.

Finally, there's the legacy lenses. They need to be completely manual focus of course, but there are a lot of possibilities. Older, MF lens might be cheap. Once you have a m4/3 adapter for that lens, you can use the extension tubes on the m4/3 end. Again, maybe inquire in the Macrophotography forum about old manual focus lenses that are good for macros.

The Hexanon AR 55mm F3.5 Macro is a Konica lens, now orphaned. Konica lenses were well respected in their day.

Thes lenses are now available on eBay for about $70 USD. Some of them are sold with the Konica extension tube as a kit. (I have one) On an M43 camera, the focus and the aperture are of course manual.

A Konica to M43 adapter is about $10 USD on ebay.

Panasonic used to make a macro adapter for the 14-42 kit lens. No one stocks it new, but you can find it used for less than $100. The model number is DMW-GMC1.  Make sure you get it with the adapter ring for the 12-42mm and not the 14mm f/2.5.

Acydstyne wrote:

Thank you all for the suggestions

from further reading, I remembered the G7 does not have in body IS. So if i get a lens with no IS, i will need a tripod as well? Or do people usually just hand hold these?

Depends on the FL & shutter speed & desired sharpness. A shutter speed of 0.5 / FL is usually adequate for handheld.

Caffeine should be considered but complicates the formula.
        0.5 / (FL x (1 + CupsOfCoffee))

Acydstyne wrote:

Thank you all for the suggestions

from further reading, I remembered the G7 does not have in body IS. So if i get a lens with no IS, i will need a tripod as well? Or do people usually just hand hold these?

A tripod is always a good thing to have.  Imagine how much better all those "selfies" would look if they weren't shot through a mirror, or at arm's length, or at the end of a wobbly stick.

The depth-of-field gets so narrow during macro shots that it is important have the camera angle absolutely perpendicular to the plane of thing you are shooting, while holding it completely still and not blocking whatever lighting you have set up. Doing this by "just leaning over" is harder than it sounds.  For macro work, you will need the kind that allows you to invert the central post and sling the camera under the tripod, like so:

What is the name for the type of tripod that is able to do this?  A lot of them can't.

If you have a physical camera store in your area that sells used gear, pay them a visit. Tripods are one item you really want to make sure will work physically with your camera and your work space before buying them.

I use the Olympus 60mm 2.8 macro to photography my wife's jewelry products (earrings/bracelets/necklaces) and I've been very happy with the results.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

"Reversible center column"? Don't know if there's an industry-standard term, but I own a couple that do this and one even included a short second column to avoid the end jutting up from the center. A nice feature, even if rarely used.

The word "inverted" turned up a lot when I was searching for a picture of the practice.  "Invertable tripod?"

Acydstyne wrote:

Thank you all for the suggestions

from further reading, I remembered the G7 does not have in body IS. So if i get a lens with no IS, i will need a tripod as well? Or do people usually just hand hold these?

IMHO, for macro shots of things like watches, you want stabilized support.  Sure if you can get enough light so that you can get a fast enough shutter speed at ISO 200 and a large aperture, you don't 'need' the support.

But in general, you want some sort of support.  In particular, unless you are just taking one picture, you want to have the camera at the exact position it was in the previous spot.

If you are doing manual focusing, you want the camera rock steady.  Otherwise, you will move the camera and have to redo the focusing all again.

I tend to think lighting is your most important item.  Camera support and setup of the watches is probably second.  Then at third is what lens to get.  If you don't have good lighting, and proper camera setup, the lens likely will only slightly improve things.  Of course depending on how far away your watch is for the camera, changes the lighting and setup.