Oly 60 macro - sharp where?

I received my Olympus 60mm macro last week.

A question regarding sharpness...

It is very sharp with close up subjects - as one would expect.

However - and I know it is not designed for this - when photographing subjects 40 metres/yards away it is only as good as my Panasonic 14-140 mk2.

I realise it needs to be optimised for macro subjects and hence distant subjects are not priority, but as a prime lens I had hoped it would be extremely sharp for far off subjects too.

So I am curious to find out if my copy is typical: Extremely sharp when subject close. Average sharp for distant subjects?

Adrian Harris wrote:

I received my Olympus 60mm macro last week.

A question regarding sharpness...

It is very sharp with close up subjects - as one would expect.

However - and I know it is not designed for this - when photographing subjects 40 metres/yards away it is only as good as my Panasonic 14-140 mk2.

I realise it needs to be optimised for macro subjects and hence distant subjects are not priority, but as a prime lens I had hoped it would be extremely sharp for far off subjects too.

So I am curious to find out if my copy is typical: Extremely sharp when subject close. Average sharp for distant subjects?

Hmm, I do not think sharpness of a lens, macro or not, should change at all with the distance. If yours does it may have a focusing problem.

But Maybe what you observe are generally softer edges, as hinted at by the MTF chart. And not a general softness across the frame? See the chart below, the red and blue lines are unusually much apart with this lens, especially from fully open to about  f/5.6. That is the character of this lens.

https://www.lenstip.com/356.4-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_60_mm_f_2.8_ED_Macro_Image_resolution.html

I have to admit that I never use the 60mm for anything other than close-ups. So I could not tell if your copy is typical.

cba_melbourne wrote:

Hmm, I do not think sharpness of a lens, macro or not, should change at all with the distance. If yours does it may have a focusing problem.

The sharpness of a lens absolutely does depend on the focus distance which is precisely why they make dedicated macro lenses rather than just using extension tubes on normal lenses.

That said I’d expect a modern macro lens to perform great at long focus distances still. Most modern macro designs perform well throughout their focus ranges.

Adrian Harris wrote:

However - and I know it is not designed for this - when photographing subjects 40 metres/yards away it is only as good as my Panasonic 14-140 mk2.

At what aperture are you making the comparison? For instance at F/8 at the center of the frame nearly all m43 lenses are very close in performance.

Building examples are sharp.

https://www.lenstip.com/356.11-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_60_mm_f_2.8_ED_Macro_Summary.html

Chris DC wrote:

Adrian:

I have anecdotally observed that my various macro lenses (60mm Oly, 50mm 4/3 oly macro, 105 sigma 4/3) give lackluster overall image quality at distances more than about 20 meters. Things in the images look "busy" and not smooth. Nothing seems very sharp.

I have always attributed this to the fact that macros are optimized for flat fields and sharpness at or near the minimum working distances. Just about any other lens I have gives me more pleasing distance results.

The macros work ok for portraits but I usually fall back on other lenses for portraits. My favorite is the 35-100mm F2, SHG 4/3 lens. It is huge and heavy but never disappoints for portraits. It doesn't focus close.

My takeaway is that I use macros for close up work and for landscape I rely on my other lenses. For now my other lenses are all old big and heavy 4/3 lenses. The newer mFT lenses seem to work well too.

I'd love to see some test data for the 60mm macro at far distances compared to other non-macro lenses but I have not found such data.

CDC

I have the FT Zuiko 50/2 and Sony 90/2.8, both exceptional lenses out to about 20m.  I still use the 90/2.8 for landscape, but it’s rather ordinary in terms of contrast etc at much over 20m.

I’d use a Panasonic or Olympus Pro zoom for tele landscape.  I was interested in the Zuiko 35-100/2 because of the excellent optical correction but it was always more than my budget, not to mention heavy.

Andrew

...for confirming my findings.

I am not unhappy with the lens, it's macro performance is excellent and I have both Olympus and Panasonic pro lenses for other long distance subject if needed.

I love learning and was keen to hear others findings.

Chris DC wrote:

Your experience with the 50mm F2 matches mine. I cannot put my finger on the problem but as you noticed, images of far subjects just don't look great.

The 35-100mm F2 SHG is just another animal all together. The optical results are stunning but it is very heavy and large, focus speed is slow by today's standards, it doesn't focus real close and a nice example will cost you about $1000.

CDC

If I was doing landscape tele, I’d go for the Tamron 75-180/2.8 on my A7R2.  For the moment I’m quite happy with a 12-40 Pro and an adapted 50-200 SWD.  If serious, I can always use the Samyang 135/2, but you have to be very serious!

Andrew

kenw wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Hmm, I do not think sharpness of a lens, macro or not, should change at all with the distance. If yours does it may have a focusing problem.

The sharpness of a lens absolutely does depend on the focus distance which is precisely why they make dedicated macro lenses rather than just using extension tubes on normal lenses.

Of course Ken. What I meant is that the sharpness of a lens, macro or not, should not change with the distance, provided it can be focused to infinity. Which is clearly the case with the Oly 60mm.

That said I’d expect a modern macro lens to perform great at long focus distances still. Most modern macro designs perform well throughout their focus ranges.

Yes. But the Oly 60mm has considerably softer corners than the center sharpness, IF and WHEN used at apertures between 2.8 and 5.6. Since one most usually closes the aperture further for macros and especially reproductions, nobody ever notices this. Until the lens is used like a normal lens.

The guys at Lenstip think, these softer edges at large apertures may be because of the unusual long and slender design of this macro lens. You can read about it in the link to their lens review from 2012 that I provided.

Anyways, it is an outstanding macro lens. Probably doubles as portrait lens too, where softer corners are usually desirable. But may not be the best lens choice for landscapes.

PS: note I and lenstip say softer. Because the lens is exceptionally sharp at the center, it is still acceptably sharp at the edges, even if these are considerably softer than the center. And it is only at the widest apertures anyway.

cba_melbourne wrote:

Adrian Harris wrote:

So I am curious to find out if my copy is typical: Extremely sharp when subject close. Average sharp for distant subjects?

Hmm, I do not think sharpness of a lens, macro or not, should change at all with the distance.

It can. Depends on the lens design. But in general, you cannot expect the lens to perform the same at infinity and at close distance. However, if there is a difference, it's usually not big enough to be obvious or even noticeable.

If yours does it may have a focusing problem

That can be the case. Best way to test, is to try using manual focus and see if it's possible to get a sharper image than with AF.

I have to admit I do not know how my 60mm compares to my other lenses. I took some portraits with it and maybe a few photos at "normal" distances and don't recall seeing anything bad. But again, without comparing side by side with another lens it's hard to tell unless it would be obviously bad.

cba_melbourne wrote:

kenw wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Hmm, I do not think sharpness of a lens, macro or not, should change at all with the distance. If yours does it may have a focusing problem.

The sharpness of a lens absolutely does depend on the focus distance which is precisely why they make dedicated macro lenses rather than just using extension tubes on normal lenses.

Of course Ken. What I meant is that the sharpness of a lens, macro or not, should not change with the distance, provided it can be focused to infinity. Which is clearly the case with the Oly 60mm.

No, again, the point is that a macro lens is designed to provide a sharp image and a flat field (hopefully) at short focus distances. This is not true of traditional lenses even when you put them on an extension tube - at close focus they usually are softer at image center and exhibit potentially extreme field curvature even if they were flat field at longer focal distances.

Aberrations are absolutely dependent on the subject distance/focus setting. This is why "floating element" lens design began to appear in macro designs many decades ago. Using a standard block focus design it was impossible to produce good sharpness at both near a far distance settings. You had to design the lens so that element groups moved relative to each other to control aberrations at both short and long focus.

https://www.opticallimits.com/focusing-systems

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/things-you-should-know-about-your-lenses-but-may-not/2

That said I’d expect a modern macro lens to perform great at long focus distances still. Most modern macro designs perform well throughout their focus ranges.

Yes. But the Oly 60mm has considerably softer corners than the center sharpness, IF and WHEN used at apertures between 2.8 and 5.6. Since one most usually closes the aperture further for macros and especially reproductions, nobody ever notices this. Until the lens is used like a normal lens.

The guys at Lenstip think, these soft edges at large apertures may be because of the unusual long and slender design of this macro lens. You can read about it in the link to their lens review from 2012 that I provided.

Anyways, it is an outstanding macro lens. Probably doubles as portrait lens too, where softer corners are usually desirable. But may not be the best lens choice for landscapes.

Yes, the drop in sharpness in the corners is really quite clear in the LensTip test. Still even in the corners those are high numbers compared to say a kit zoom center sharpness:

https://www.lenstip.com/334.4-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_12-50_mm_f_3.5-6.3_ED_EZ_Image_resolution.html

Their test method says they use A0, A1, A2 and A3 test charts and average all the results. They make no mention of checking for or correction for field curvature in their tests. So anyway clearly they aren't testing at macro distances at all and it is quite possible the Oly has field curvature at non-macro working distances which is what may cause that fall off in the corners.

Astrotripper wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Adrian Harris wrote:

So I am curious to find out if my copy is typical: Extremely sharp when subject close. Average sharp for distant subjects?

Hmm, I do not think sharpness of a lens, macro or not, should change at all with the distance.

It can. Depends on the lens design. But in general, you cannot expect the lens to perform the same at infinity and at close distance. However, if there is a difference, it's usually not big enough to be obvious or even noticeable.

Err, I still do not think so. If a lens has say field curvature, the effects of curvature will be present at any focus distance. If a lens has soft edges, this will be present at any focus distance, etc.

Changing the aperture will of course affect sharpness.

With lenses that move only one single element for focusing, there may be a very small difference in sharpness at different focus distances. But I think this will be a very minor difference, compared to the effects of aperture and other aberrations.

cba_melbourne wrote:

Astrotripper wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Adrian Harris wrote:

So I am curious to find out if my copy is typical: Extremely sharp when subject close. Average sharp for distant subjects?

Hmm, I do not think sharpness of a lens, macro or not, should change at all with the distance.

It can. Depends on the lens design. But in general, you cannot expect the lens to perform the same at infinity and at close distance. However, if there is a difference, it's usually not big enough to be obvious or even noticeable.

Err, I still do not think so. If a lens has say field curvature, the effects of curvature will be present at any focus distance. If a lens has soft edges, this will be present at any focus distance, etc.

No, flat out 100% absolutely wrong. See links in my post (which I was probably cross posting so you didn't see before making yours).

kenw wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

kenw wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Hmm, I do not think sharpness of a lens, macro or not, should change at all with the distance. If yours does it may have a focusing problem.

The sharpness of a lens absolutely does depend on the focus distance which is precisely why they make dedicated macro lenses rather than just using extension tubes on normal lenses.

Of course Ken. What I meant is that the sharpness of a lens, macro or not, should not change with the distance, provided it can be focused to infinity. Which is clearly the case with the Oly 60mm.

No, again, the point is that a macro lens is designed to provide a sharp image and a flat field (hopefully) at short focus distances. This is not true of traditional lenses even when you put them on an extension tube - at close focus they usually are softer at image center and exhibit potentially extreme field curvature even if they were flat field at longer focal distances.

Aberrations are absolutely dependent on the subject distance/focus setting. This is why "floating element" lens design began to appear in macro designs many decades ago. Using a standard block focus design it was impossible to produce good sharpness at both near a far distance settings. You had to design the lens so that element groups moved relative to each other to control aberrations at both short and long focus.

https://www.opticallimits.com/focusing-systems

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/things-you-should-know-about-your-lenses-but-may-not/2

That said I’d expect a modern macro lens to perform great at long focus distances still. Most modern macro designs perform well throughout their focus ranges.

Yes. But the Oly 60mm has considerably softer corners than the center sharpness, IF and WHEN used at apertures between 2.8 and 5.6. Since one most usually closes the aperture further for macros and especially reproductions, nobody ever notices this. Until the lens is used like a normal lens.

The guys at Lenstip think, these soft edges at large apertures may be because of the unusual long and slender design of this macro lens. You can read about it in the link to their lens review from 2012 that I provided.

Anyways, it is an outstanding macro lens. Probably doubles as portrait lens too, where softer corners are usually desirable. But may not be the best lens choice for landscapes.

Yes, the drop in sharpness in the corners is really quite clear in the LensTip test. Still even in the corners those are high numbers compared to say a kit zoom center sharpness:

https://www.lenstip.com/334.4-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_12-50_mm_f_3.5-6.3_ED_EZ_Image_resolution.html

Their test method says they use A0, A1, A2 and A3 test charts and average all the results. They make no mention of checking for or correction for field curvature in their tests. So anyway clearly they aren't testing at macro distances at all and it is quite possible the Oly has field curvature at non-macro working distances which is what may cause that fall off in the corners.

I see. Makes perfect sense now. Thanks for putting me right , I learned something today.