Next Step, Macro or Wildlife?

After having all the discussions in Thread 1 and Thread 2, I have taken the plunge and bought an E-M1.2 with 12-40 Pro. For travel, I am getting the Panasonic 14-140 tomorrow, available for $230 used. I have not tinkered much with it, but I've loved the limited clicks done using the camera so far.

My campus corridor with Pop Art filter

My first try with the live composite view.

I am getting a feeling that I will use live-composite more often.

Now the question and my dilemma is that apart from the general wide-angle and mid-tele-zoom for travel, which direction should I go next? Here are some bird shots with my A100 and Minolta 70-300 and Sigma 70-300 APO around 6 years ago. Pardon the color rendition, I've over-processed the images as I had a dull DELL monitor back then. I realized this only after getting a MacBook and a BENQ professional monitor.

This guy picked a cookie from our open garden tea party

In my area, or even on my trip to sanctuaries, I have always found A100 and Minolta 70-300 limited in focus speed and reach. The Sigma APO was used with manual focus (A100 screw drive broke its plastic gear ) and gave me more keepers. I always struggled to get better keepers of birds and other animals as compared to my peers and fellow travelers. Maybe I needed to practice more.

On the other hand, macro photography is like a fascination and unchartered territory for me. Now it seems possible with my camera, so it is intriguing for me. In fact, it is one of the factors for choosing the EM1.2 camera as I hoped to explore this in near future.

So which direction would be better to go considering the fact I currently have a budget only for one. I can spare around $1000 which will get me either one of these:

• Olympus 60mm Macro + TTL Flash / Twin Flash + Softbox / diffuser
• Olympus 75-300mm II (Costs $800 new here) or PL 100-300mm ( $50 cheaper than Olympus, but seems to be off the market now or some shortage, cannot find one new or used in India yet). I can also wait a couple of months and directly buy the Oly 100-400 if I get to a proper decision.

Weird question from a weird guy.

tammons wrote:

If you want to shoot birds stretch your budget and get one of the 100-400mm lenses.

$800 is way too much for a Olympus 75-300mm II. You can get them used for about $350.

I agree with the price, but I cannot find any used in India. I stopped looking on Ebay, because of the high import taxes while searching for an E-M1.2 camera. But now I checked, this lens would cost me $450~500 including shipping and customs. That still saves me $300

The Olympus 100-400 cost about $1800 here new. From ebay, used ones with shipping and customs also cost around $1800. Seems like I should wait and save

snowline wrote:

One of the great things about Olympus lenses is their close focus, near-macro design. I have the 60 macro (which is great) but seldom use it these days. For most subjects. my 40-150 2.8 or Oly 100-400 get close enough, with the advantages of more versatility and more distance from the subject. I shoot almost exclusively nature shots and had the 40-150 (new to me last year) glued to my camera most of the time until I go the Oly 100-400 last month. Still learning it and the OM-1 and already loving the close focus. See examples from the last couple of days below, all with the 100-400.

That is good to know. I was not aware that Oly 100-400 has such close focus ability.

I took this shot of badge moss -- the leaves are less than 7mm long. I barely even bent down since I only meant to document the moss versus take a great photo. With the 60 macro I would have had to be prone on the ground to get this perspective.) This photo nonetheless has decent detail and I'm confident I could get a better result with just a little more attention and effort.

Slime mold (maybe Brefeldia maxima but happy to be corrected) that was about 6 cm across. This is an 8-shot focus stack with the 100-400. Too close if anything.

Sometimes you want to get close to your subject from a lot farther away, e.g., with grizzly bears. This was again basically a snapshot while avoiding the bear as much as possible. See the claws for why the 60 macro would have been inadvisable.

To summarize, I've used all my Olympus lenses for near-macro shots, including the 12-40. And I seldom use the full 1:1 on my 60 macro since, other than tiny insects, flowers, etc., I usually want to include more of the subject, I highly recommend the 60 macro, but the 100-400 or excellent 40-150 f2.8 give you a lot of options.

Bob.

This is a good point. If 100-400 cover other close focus subjects except for the tiny insects, then it would indeed be a better choice

jalywol wrote:

Solution?

Get the 100-400mm. The reach is great for birding. AND, if you add extension tubes you can use it for macro work.

I do a lot of both types of shooting with the PL100-400mm, and it works tremendously well for both.

The other thing is, you can get a legacy manual focus 50mm macro lens and a very cheap adapter, and you will have a great dedicated macro setup for very little cost.

Some shots from the 100-400mm in the macro realm:

WOW..!!  That is a great use of a telephoto lens in the macro realm.

Would the PL 100-400 perform as expected on E-M1.2 ? I am asking as Panasonic is cheaper ($1600) than Olympus 100-400 ($1800) here.

It is possible to get great close-up photos with a lot of lenses as long as the subject is large enough and the working distance of the lens is short enough. Also, the optical quality of many M4/3 lenses can be good enough that you can enlarge a lot before losing IQ. You probably don't need a macro lens for a rose blossom in the garden. However, there may be times when you need to be only a few inches away from a very small subject and then a macro lens or tubes/diopters are warranted. You probably would need one for a good shot of a jumping spider, and even then you might need more than 1:1 magnification. It's a slippery slope, and increasingly technically demanding as the magnification gets larger.  For more serious macro, get the macro lens.  For more serious tele, get the tele.

In any case, the Olympus 60mm macro lens is relatively small and light, optically superb, and an excellent value. It's also a decent prime 60mm lens for portraits and other short telephoto work. If I was out to shoot flowers in the garden, I'd normally rather carry the 60mm macro than a bigger, heavier lens like a 100-400, but it's nice to have the reach of the tele in case a bird flies into view.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

I'd go macro first. Not only is it less brutal on the wallet, you will be well served with the lens and lights for a long while and not immediately banging against their limits. The 300mm zooms are compromised WRT focus responsiveness, aperture and resolution compared to the 400mm zooms and 300 Pro (the most common alternatives) and you may find yourself catching a bad case of upgradeitis pretty quickly.

All IMHO of course.

Cheers,

Rick

Fair point. Macro setup would cost me 1/3rd of the 100-400 lenses.
I don't want to be infected with upgradeitis soon.

jalywol wrote:

The PL 100-400mm does very well on the Oly bodies. You do lose the Dual-IS, but the OIS in the lens is excellent, so that's not a major factor in using it well.

There are quite a few users of this lens on Oly bodies who post here.

There are two things you have to watch out for when you do get one of these; first, make sure the zoom is not stiff. Some of the early ones had a problem with this, but I haven't heard that this is still an issue with the currently made ones. Second, you need to make sure the OIS is working properly; it should be fast and accurate and give you consistent results. Your in-focus keeper rate should be very high, and it should focus on what you have the target box on, not around it. (I had one copy that came in with a bad OIS module, and I exchanged it, and the new one was fine). If you can try the one you are buying that would be ideal, but I know that's not the usual now, unfortuately.

One thing about ALL of these long lenses. There is a very big learning curve to using them successfully out at full telephoto lengths. Holding technique matters, as does being aware of atmospheric conditions that can add to distortion at distance. It does take time to develop the skills to get the most out of them, so patience is definitely a virtue as you start working with them.

-J

Duly noted...!!  
It seems Olympus 100-400mm would be a better choice with less hassle if I go that route.

BBbuilder467 wrote:

The 12-40 Pro should have 0.3x magnification, which is more than enough for most flowers and nature subjects. That should tell you if you're drawn toward true macro.

A set of extension tubes added to the 14-140 should get you close to 1:1 at little cost.

The nice thing about macro/close-up is you can do it 24 hours a day, indoors or out. You don't have to go anywhere. There is no limit to subject matter.

Ah yeah, but walking miles to get a shot of some rare bird is potentially much healthier.

But, more seriously, I have been/am in much the same dilemma. macro and/or birding ??

I have the Oly 60mm macro but haven't used it as I decided I was too old to crawl around in the (usually) wet ground trying to align camera/tripod. And all the accessory lighting does not appeal either, I'm a natural lighting fan.

In the past I have used the 4/3 Zuiko 70-300mm for close-ups, it will do 1:2 magnification at a much more convenient and potentially safer working distance.

Now I have the m.zuiko 75-300mm which needs an extension ring or two for close-ups. But is also doubles as quite a good lens for wildlife.
And I can also add extension rings to my 12-40mm Pro lens for macro.

Since funds are a problem (been there, still there), I would suggest re-thinking the m.zuiko 75-300mm lens for both close-ups and wildlife.

I'm in NZ and am penalised by high import taxes, low exchange rate, and expensive shipping. All this makes the Oly 100-400mm for example, an overpriced option. All very well for someone in the USA, but not so attractive in the colonies.

Finally, check this long-running DPR thread on the 75-300mm,
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65902554

Cheers,

BBbuilder467 wrote:

The 12-40 Pro should have 0.3x magnification, which is more than enough for most flowers and nature subjects. That should tell you if you're drawn toward true macro.

That is an interesting proposition. There are used kenko tubes available for cheap in the market. I think I should try them.

A set of extension tubes added to the 14-140 should get you close to 1:1 at little cost.

The nice thing about macro/close-up is you can do it 24 hours a day, indoors or out. You don't have to go anywhere. There is no limit to subject matter.

It's summer here and a lot of insects are coming out of certain corners and waste pipes.

3dpan wrote:

BBbuilder467 wrote:

The 12-40 Pro should have 0.3x magnification, which is more than enough for most flowers and nature subjects. That should tell you if you're drawn toward true macro.

A set of extension tubes added to the 14-140 should get you close to 1:1 at little cost.

The nice thing about macro/close-up is you can do it 24 hours a day, indoors or out. You don't have to go anywhere. There is no limit to subject matter.

Ah yeah, but walking miles to get a shot of some rare bird is potentially much healthier.

That should get some fat off my beer belly. ;-D

But, more seriously, I have been/am in much the same dilemma. macro and/or birding ??

I have the Oly 60mm macro but haven't used it as I decided I was too old to crawl around in the (usually) wet ground trying to align camera/tripod. And all the accessory lighting does not appeal either, I'm a natural lighting fan.

In the past I have used the 4/3 Zuiko 70-300mm for close-ups, it will do 1:2 magnification at a much more convenient and potentially safer working distance.

Now I have the m.zuiko 75-300mm which needs an extension ring or two for close-ups. But is also doubles as quite a good lens for wildlife.
And I can also add extension rings to my 12-40mm Pro lens for macro.

Since funds are a problem (been there, still there), I would suggest re-thinking the m.zuiko 75-300mm lens for both close-ups and wildlife.

I'm in NZ and am penalised by high import taxes, low exchange rate, and expensive shipping. All this makes the Oly 100-400mm for example, an overpriced option. All very well for someone in the USA, but not so attractive in the colonies.

I am also in the same bucket. Import taxes in India are proportionate to the product's price. Expensive the product, more custom duty is levied. It is sort of confusing, I can get a 75-300 used for $450~500 including customs from ebay. But if I try the same with Oly 100-400, it becomes a total of approx $1700. And that is just $100 less than the price of a new lens in India.

Finally, check this long-running DPR thread on the 75-300mm,
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65902554

Cheers,

Will check this thread for sure. Thanks for sharing.

3dpan wrote:

BBbuilder467 wrote:

The 12-40 Pro should have 0.3x magnification, which is more than enough for most flowers and nature subjects. That should tell you if you're drawn toward true macro.

A set of extension tubes added to the 14-140 should get you close to 1:1 at little cost.

The nice thing about macro/close-up is you can do it 24 hours a day, indoors or out. You don't have to go anywhere. There is no limit to subject matter.

Ah yeah, but walking miles to get a shot of some rare bird is potentially much healthier.

But, more seriously, I have been/am in much the same dilemma. macro and/or birding ??

I have the Oly 60mm macro but haven't used it as I decided I was too old to crawl around in the (usually) wet ground trying to align camera/tripod. And all the accessory lighting does not appeal either, I'm a natural lighting fan.

In the past I have used the 4/3 Zuiko 70-300mm for close-ups, it will do 1:2 magnification at a much more convenient and potentially safer working distance.

Now I have the m.zuiko 75-300mm which needs an extension ring or two for close-ups. But is also doubles as quite a good lens for wildlife.
And I can also add extension rings to my 12-40mm Pro lens for macro.

Since funds are a problem (been there, still there), I would suggest re-thinking the m.zuiko 75-300mm lens for both close-ups and wildlife.

I'm in NZ and am penalised by high import taxes, low exchange rate, and expensive shipping. All this makes the Oly 100-400mm for example, an overpriced option. All very well for someone in the USA, but not so attractive in the colonies.

Finally, check this long-running DPR thread on the 75-300mm,
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65902554

Cheers,

I got a used PL 100-300 Mark II for $380. I had to converse with an individual who listed his lens on a widely used listing portal that only provides a listing and no payment options. I got his image samples to check if this copy is sharp enough.
Had a deal purely on trust basis, payment is done and courier is on its way. I asked him to send it to the ISB Hyderabad campus where my colleague works and I going there on 1st June. Can't wait to get my hands on the lens and test it on our in-house wildlife (we also have boars ) living inside our campus.
Fḭngers Crossed 🤞.

Additionally, I got another deal with Kenko extension tubes set (10 and 16mm) for $60. I hope to try your suggestion for tele-macro.

Techuser wrote:

Go both, but you only to spend for wildlife, macro is cheap and doesn't require you to buy a macro lens, I'm a macrophotographer but only recently I began using a macro lens (the laowa 50mm, bought the day it launched)

Agreed. But I realized that I am more interested in wildlife. Maybe it is also due to the fact that I've always had a telephoto lens with me and it is missing in my M43 system. 
I was getting a used PL 100-300mm lens cheap, so I bought that. I will try and venture into macro photography a couple of months later.

You can do macro with a good close-up filter on the lenses you already have, or buy a cheap vintage lens to use reversed, I wrote this like 10 years ago before I moved to m4/3 but applies the same: https://blog.primalshutter.com/blog/lens-reversing-technique/

Yes, I have tried and failed with the old Sony A100 and Minolta 50mm 7 years ago. The pin-based aperture system posed a challenge. I guessed I will be more leaned toward starting with extension tubes (which I already got) and possibly adding a Raynox 250 later on just to explore macro along while doing wildlife.