macro options

[Andrewcn]

I do all my photography on the X100V at present and the only restriction that I miss is a macro lens. So, I'm thinking of buying a camera and single macro lens just for this purpose. I like to shoot handheld and so would prefer ibis or ois in the lens.

I was considering the following possible options:-

1. Fuji X-T2 with 80mm macro (both used)

2. Olympus OM-DEMO II with 60mm macro (both. used)

The fuji has 24mb v 16mb on the Olympus.

Has anyone used both of these and could comment on the benefits/disadvantages of both? Obviously there is a difference in cost and the fuji option is much larger and heavier.

I would only be photographing flowers, plants etc no insects or anything moving.

Thanks

 

[a_c_skinner]

Both the 60mm and Zeiss 50mm are good and the 60mm is close enough for most people. It is a good deal lighter. OIS does help with close ups more than people say (usually people who are more into theory than practice). AF helps too, same idea.

I've no experience of the other independent "macro" lenses but most are optically good, people say.

I'd consider one of the good close up lenses on your X100. You could buy a cheap one as a trial run, you'd find workng distance very small though but if they fit the bill. You'd need to look into fitting them (like filters) to the X100.

--
Andrew Skinner

 

[JayPhizzt]

I do all my photography on the X100V at present and the only restriction that I miss is a macro lens. So, I'm thinking of buying a camera and single macro lens just for this purpose. I like to shoot handheld and so would prefer ibis or ois in the lens.

I was considering the following possible options:-

1. Fuji X-T2 with 80mm macro (both used)

2. Olympus OM-DEMO II with 60mm macro (both. used)

The fuji has 24mb v 16mb on the Olympus.

Has anyone used both of these and could comment on the benefits/disadvantages of both? Obviously there is a difference in cost and the fuji option is much larger and heavier.

I would only be photographing flowers, plants etc no insects or anything moving.

Thanks

I haven't used both, but I do have the Fuji 80mm and it's an absolutely fantastic lens. The best lens I've ever used in fact. It's extremely sharp, has incredible contrast and a beautiful bokeh. The only real downside to it is the weight.

I have not doubt that the Olympus 60mm is a great lens as well, but I don't think it's going to be at quite the same level as the Fuji 80mm.

Of course the upside to the Olympus setup is that it'll be significantly lighter.

However if you want something much lighter for Fuji there is of course also the 60/2.4 macro which is an optically excellent lens as well. It "only" has 1:2 magnification, but for flowers I'd say that 1:1 is seldom needed. I'd even say it's a perfect lens for flowers. Of course the 60/2.4 doesn't have OIS, but it's much cheaper than the 80mm so for the money you save maybe you could get an X-T4 instead of an X-T2.

 

[DerekLittlewood]

I’ve not used both either. I have the Fuji 80 and it is optically excellent. It is heavy and expensive. One advantage is that it will give you a longer working distance. This is good for insects and other living subjects. It also gives you more room for lighting which is crucial in macro. I use the 80 hand-held which is a fluid way of working. Of course you could go old school on a tripod, use any manual macro lens, I have Zeiss Contax in an adapter. But a more considered way of working. If you do get the Fuji, then be aware that the internal lens elements move about in an alarming way when you lift the lens! Nothing to worry about though.

 

[Tim van der Leeuw]

How about:

X-H1 + Laowa 65mm?

I find that I so often prefer manual focus for macro, because the lens / camera otherwise are hunting for focus or missing focus and focussing too far away and I have little control.

And for manual focus, I prefer an actual manual-focus lens, not a lens with focus-by-wire, because then I actually know at which point I'm at minimum focus distance! :-D

The Laowa 65mm doesn't have OIS like the 80mm macro does, so therefore my recommendation for an X-H1 instead of X-T2.

Another reason why I favour the Laowa 65mm lens over the Fuji 80mm macro is that with the Laowa, I can get much closer if I so wish.

I have both lenses, and while I do still use the Fuji 80mm macro from time to time, oftentimes when I use it, I find myself switching to the Laowa 65mm to have more control over my shots and get the shot I actually want.

Lastly, while the X-H1 might be heavier and perhaps more expensive than the X-T2, the Laowa 65mm is a lot cheaper and lighter than the Fuji 80mm macro.

And as a bonus tip: use a flashlight with a small diffuser to shoot your macro images!

 

[pictograph]

I do all my photography on the X100V at present and the only restriction that I miss is a macro lens. So, I'm thinking of buying a camera and single macro lens just for this purpose. I like to shoot handheld and so would prefer ibis or ois in the lens.

I was considering the following possible options:-

1. Fuji X-T2 with 80mm macro (both used)

2. Olympus OM-DEMO II with 60mm macro (both. used)

The fuji has 24mb v 16mb on the Olympus.

Has anyone used both of these and could comment on the benefits/disadvantages of both? Obviously there is a difference in cost and the fuji option is much larger and heavier.

I would only be photographing flowers, plants etc no insects or anything moving.

Thanks

Since some X-bodies have IBIs now, the missing OIS of the 2.4/60 is less and less important.

I do not own a 2.8/80 (because of its weight, price and it is very bulky) although the 80 mm seems to have fantastic IQ, but I own the 60mm since 10 years now and really recommend it.

this lens is just fantastic, lightweight, good for Portraits, landscape and Macro if you do not need 1:1 magnification.

together with the cheap and light MCEX 16 you can go up to about 0,8:1 though.

I think 0,5 magnification is mor than enough for 99% of photographers.

for me, this lens is one of the most underrated lenses made by Fujifilm.

Cheers

 

[Tim van der Leeuw]

I think 0,5 magnification is mor than enough for 99% of photographers.

For me on the other hand, I found that even 1x magnification of the Fuji 80mm macro is not enough! :-D

 

[Rightsaidfred]

How about:

X-H1 + Laowa 65mm?

I second the lens recommendation. The Laowa is an excellent lens. There are many posts here in the forum. Just do a search.

...

And for manual focus, I prefer an actual manual-focus lens, not a lens with focus-by-wire, because then I actually know at which point I'm at minimum focus distance! :-D

Yep.

The Laowa 65mm doesn't have OIS like the 80mm macro does, so therefore my recommendation for an X-H1 instead of X-T2.

Good advice. However, a body with IBIS is not a must. I successfully used the Laowa with my X-T20. Any Fujifilm-X body will do. Of course, IBIS is an advantage in some situations.

Another reason why I favour the Laowa 65mm lens over the Fuji 80mm macro is that with the Laowa, I can get much closer if I so wish.

Yep. 2:1.

...

the Laowa 65mm is a lot cheaper and lighter than the Fuji 80mm macro.

Yep.

And as a bonus tip: use a flashlight with a small diffuser to shoot your macro images!

Yep.

Kind regards,

Martin

--
https://500px.com/bachrocks
https://100asa.com/photographer/martin
https://www.instagram.com/martin.lang.photography

 

[Rod McD]

Hi,

It seems to me that a new body and 80/2.8 are an expensive option with a somewhat large and heavy lens. That may not matter to you if you're going to be doing a lot of macro.

The Fuji 60/2.4 is an excellent lens to 1:2 and would suit a great many flower shots. There are of course small flowers which may call for more magnification, but they are more the exception than the rule. The good thing about the 60mm is that it doubles as an excellent small portrait and general telephoto lens. The AF is Fuji's first generation and a bit slower than more recent lenses, but in my experience it's fine - flowers tend not to move that fast.

I also have the Laowa 65/2.8 Apo Macro and agree with Martin and others that it's an excellent lens with real manual helical focus. It only weighs 335g and focuses closer than either the Fuji 60 or 80. The recent tests at 26mpx of the Laowa 65 and Fuji 80 on the Optical Limits site leave no doubt that the 65 is a superlative lens.

The working distances of all of the above three lenses (XF60, L65, XF80) are rather short. If you want a lens with both more reach and more working distance than these I would suggest adapting a legacy 100-105mm macro lens from the film SLR world. There are many excellent options from across the manufacturers. Mine happens to be the Minolta MD 100/4. To adapt, you'd need to get a lens with manual helical focus and an aperture ring. All of these options will be significantly larger than the Fuji 60, but probably cheaper than any option in native mount.

Hope that helps,

Rod

 

[number_5]

I think 0,5 magnification is mor than enough for 99% of photographers.

For me on the other hand, I found that even 1x magnification of the Fuji 80mm macro is not enough! :-D

+1. I usually go out with a 2:1 lens. Whenever I had a 1:1 on some outings, it felt fairly limited, even for some flowers.

 

[allemania]

I have the X-H1 as well as the 60 2.4. For the the purposes you mentioned, this would be a stellar combo. Like others have mentioned, the 60mm is a gem. I shoot a lot of flowers and butterflies and have always been thrilled with the results. On occasion, I have used a tripod and manual focus when the depth of field was really shallow, but have been impressed with the autofocus accuracy of this lens when you keep the focus box on one of the smaller settings.

On a whim last year, I bought an Olympus E-M10ii and the 60mm macro lens. It is, of course, a true macro lens with 1:1 magnification, but I rarely need to be that close for the shooting that I do. I was shocked at how good this combination is. It also makes for a very small package. I have been shooting Fuji for a few years and have enjoyed it tremendously, but the Olympus combo showed me that other manufacturers have some outstanding gear.

In the end, I think you would be happy with either combination.

 

[number_5]

How about:

X-H1 + Laowa 65mm?

I second the lens recommendation. The Laowa is an excellent lens. There are many posts here in the forum. Just do a search.

+1 for the lens. It also has the MFT (Oly) mount. IMO, any decent mirrorless camera paired with the Laowa can't go wrong and will give you very good result.

...

And for manual focus, I prefer an actual manual-focus lens, not a lens with focus-by-wire, because then I actually know at which point I'm at minimum focus distance! :-D

Yep.

Manual focus is the way to go. Most of my macro photos were either front or back focused very slightly in AF mode for small subjects. I do 100% MF for macro.

the Laowa 65mm is a lot cheaper and lighter than the Fuji 80mm macro.

Yep.

If 2:1 is not needed, the 7artisans' 60mm 1:1 is a good option. It's even cheaper than Laowa's.

And as a bonus tip: use a flashlight with a small diffuser to shoot your macro images!

Yep.

Bonus: if a camera flash is used, you really don't need the OIS or IBIS. The flash will freeze the motion.

Kind regards,

Martin

@OP: everyone's suggestions and your listed packages can give you great and similar results. It comes down to size and cost.

 

[Tim van der Leeuw]

The Laowa 65mm doesn't have OIS like the 80mm macro does, so therefore my recommendation for an X-H1 instead of X-T2.

Good advice. However, a body with IBIS is not a must. I successfully used the Laowa with my X-T20. Any Fujifilm-X body will do. Of course, IBIS is an advantage in some situations.

I know, I often use the Laowa 65mm with my X-T3 as well. However, the OP asked for some sort of image-stabilisation, either in-lens or in-camera, so hence my recommendation to get an X-H1 instead of X-T2!

Kind regards,

Martin

Cheers,

--Tim

 

[a_c_skinner]

"a true macro lens with 1:1 magnification, but I rarely need to be that close for the shooting that I do"

Reproduction ratio isn't the issue, it is how small an object can be made to fill the frame. 1:1 on 135 full frame is only a little closer than 1:2 on APS-C. 1:1 on 4/3 is really rather close and compares with 2:1 on full frame.

Buy what you need of course but don't judge it by reproduction ratio without allowing for sensor or film size.

And please can we stop saying true macro, it makes no sense. A true macro by this definition on a film medium format will fill the frame with a playing card, nothing smaller. On a full plate field camera it would only fill the frame with a child's shoe.

 

[a_c_skinner]

In any system the close up but longer working distance is ill served, as is anything beyond 1:1 whatever system - makers stop at this almost always.

Most modern macros are internal focus and their focal length is reduced to focus closer rather than the old helicoid focus. The Fuji 80mm has less working distance than the 60mm at 1:2 for eg.

100mm is tops for easy availability. Extra extension will get you closer, but you need more and more as focal lengths increase.

Novoflex makes good bellows and a bellows lens but very costly. This Canon lens looks interesting, I met someone (a pro) using it hand held in the field on small insects.

Nikon used to make macro-nikkors which were like microscope lenses, I think Olympus did too for extreme closeups.

If I were looking for longer working distance I'd look at the Nikon 200mm AI f4 - not the macro one the vanilla one with Nikon tubes, actually fairly cheap to do. For a lot closer up not as easy.

Longer focal lengths help another aspect as well as working distance. The perspective given by the working distance means the background is a narrower angle and that makes for less distracting backgrounds irrespective of background blur.

So the Fuji ultimate is 80 with 1.4x. It is the best you can do. Beyond what that can do you are into difficulties with few choices. The 60mm and the Zeiss 50mm deserve more attention than they get.

 

[a_c_skinner]

To avoid needing to read the rubbish I've posted elsewhere just to point out the new 70-300 gets pretty close at 0.33x according to Fuji which gets pretty close at a long working distance.

You can use the 1.4x with the 55-200 if you put the thin extension tube between them and get fairly close too. Seems acceptably sharp stopped down a bit.

 

[number_5]

To avoid needing to read the rubbish I've posted elsewhere just to point out the new 70-300 gets pretty close at 0.33x according to Fuji which gets pretty close at a long working distance.

You can use the 1.4x with the 55-200 if you put the thin extension tube between them and get fairly close too. Seems acceptably sharp stopped down a bit.

You are right! However, if I read OP correctly, he's looking for a simple camera + lens combo only for macro, to supplement his main camera. Your suggestions seem a bit overkill, especially, the [1.4x TC + extension tube + 55-200mm].

 

[number_5]

The Laowa 65mm doesn't have OIS like the 80mm macro does, so therefore my recommendation for an X-H1 instead of X-T2.

Good advice. However, a body with IBIS is not a must. I successfully used the Laowa with my X-T20. Any Fujifilm-X body will do. Of course, IBIS is an advantage in some situations.

I know, I often use the Laowa 65mm with my X-T3 as well. However, the OP asked for some sort of image-stabilisation, either in-lens or in-camera, so hence my recommendation to get an X-H1 instead of X-T2!

I would like to throw in the X-S10. I'd seen an used S10 for about the same price as an used H1. Everything in the S10 just ... newer. [EDIT: the H1 does have better view finder, and it does help for manual focusing.]

 

[a_c_skinner]

Yes, but the debate has widened, it always does on here.

 

[JayPhizzt]

I would like to throw in the X-S10. I'd seen an used S10 for about the same price as an used H1. Everything in the S10 just ... newer.

Newer doesn't automatically mean better. The X-H1 is still superior in many ways. That's not so strange either since the X-H1 is a pro/enthusiast body while the X-S10 is a midrange body. The X-S10 does of course also have it's advantages, though. It all comes down to your personal needs and preferences.