My experience after using E-M1 Mark II

Three months ago, I bought E-M1 Mark II camera and I have used it extensively for bird photography. Initially, I used Panasonic 100-300 II and now I have settled for PL 100-400. As a combo deal, I also got Kenko 16mm and 10mm extension tubes. This setup has served me well and is giving me more than satisfactory results.

Recently I've added Oly 60mm macro, Godox V860IIo to my arsenal and started macro photography with the setup. Following are my observations so far about my setups. You can add, contradict if you had different observations, and correct me If I am wrong.

Birds and other wildlife:

• For birds, I am mostly using 250-400mm range only. Relying on the Lens OIS has proven more effective than IBIS. The settings I use are posted here .
• Using extension tubes with 100-400 has given me very good results on butterflies, blister beetles, and other bigger macro subjects.
• One issue I have is that while using C-AF my keeper rate (2~3 / 10) is not very good for distant birds or BIF shots. I tend to prepare well for this and have got at least one shot of the subject I see and think of. But I do long for a keeper rate like people have reported here with Oly 100-400. If I get a used one in my country, I will switch for sure. The new one here retails for about $1800.

Macro Pictures:

• I had a couple of photo walks for the macro in the last 2 weeks. I am really impressed with what I could achieve with this tiny lens, a flash, and a proper diffuser.

• 

• The focusing capability is slow at times, and I have missed many bugs during the focus time. Maybe practice will make me better.
• Using the viewfinder with setup seems difficult and I relied on the live view screen more while simultaneously tracking the bug with naked eyes while I am setting up the frame.
• For smaller bugs, I tried using the extension tubes with a 60mm lens. While it gives good results with flash but there is some light loss observed. Also, the focus gets wafer-thin with tubes. So, when I was holding a leaf in one hand and a camera with a big flash in another hand, many of my subjects were slightly out of focus because of some movement.
• There are times when I get a skittish subject like grasshoppers, I had to remove extension tubes because bringing them into focus plane scared them. Also with multiple times removal of tubes, the lock string of my 10mm tube is broken. I think a quickly removable diopter like DCR 250 can help me better than tubes here. Let me know your views here.

For now, I am separating my targets, i.e. if I decide on macro on a garden, or forest area walks, I will do that only. Removing the diffuser setup and mounting a zoom lens in between can be cumbersome, not to mention the moments/clicks I would miss while doing that. Will add a second faster body like E-M1x for birding when I can afford one.

gursharan-info wrote:

Birds and other wildlife:

• For birds, I am mostly using 250-400mm range only. Relying on the Lens OIS has proven more effective than IBIS. The settings I use are posted here .
• Using extension tubes with 100-400 has given me very good results on butterflies, blister beetles, and other bigger macro subjects.
• One issue I have is that while using C-AF my keeper rate (2~3 / 10) is not very good for distant birds or BIF shots. I tend to prepare well for this and have got at least one shot of the subject I see and think of. But I do long for a keeper rate like people have reported here with Oly 100-400. If I get a used one in my country, I will switch for sure. The new one here retails for about $1800.

CAF focus for moving targets on the E-M1s (E-M1.2 and later) is based on two factors.  The lens focus for the specific image and on the focus of the previously exposed images.  The number of frames required for obtaining accurate focus prediction will depend on the lens (focus speed and maximum aperture) and the amount of change in focus distance between frames.  For things that change focus relatively quickly this can take anywhere from 3-7 frames for the camera to accurately predict focus for the next image.  The attached images for a bee in flight (similar to birds in flight in terms of focus) using the 300mm f4 with the MC20 (f8) illustrate the change in focus over frames.  The camera frame rate has little to do with the number of images required for accurate focus, so high fps rates will give more accurately focused images in equivalent amounts of time.

Image #1 is an uncropped image of one of the frames.  Images #2 and #3 are the first 26 consecutive frames.  If you look at the images at 100% and look at the fine hairs on the rear of the bee, you can see focus improvements over the first 6 frames.  After that there are small changes in focus accuracy due to both camera/lens focus variability and to changes in the bees flight pattern.

My tests with flying swallows using the E-M1.2 resulted in very similar results (posted on some very old DPR post).

drj3 wrote:

gursharan-info wrote:

Birds and other wildlife:

• For birds, I am mostly using 250-400mm range only. Relying on the Lens OIS has proven more effective than IBIS. The settings I use are posted here .
• Using extension tubes with 100-400 has given me very good results on butterflies, blister beetles, and other bigger macro subjects.
• One issue I have is that while using C-AF my keeper rate (2~3 / 10) is not very good for distant birds or BIF shots. I tend to prepare well for this and have got at least one shot of the subject I see and think of. But I do long for a keeper rate like people have reported here with Oly 100-400. If I get a used one in my country, I will switch for sure. The new one here retails for about $1800.

CAF focus for moving targets on the E-M1s (E-M1.2 and later) is based on two factors. The lens focus for the specific image and on the focus of the previously exposed images. The number of frames required for obtaining accurate focus prediction will depend on the lens (focus speed and maximum aperture) and the amount of change in focus distance between frames. For things that change focus relatively quickly this can take anywhere from 3-7 frames for the camera to accurately predict focus for the next image. The attached images for a bee in flight (similar to birds in flight in terms of focus) using the 300mm f4 with the MC20 (f8) illustrate the change in focus over frames. The camera frame rate has little to do with the number of images required for accurate focus, so high fps rates will give more accurately focused images in equivalent amounts of time.

Thanks. I was not aware of these fundamentals and how CAF works here. This is completely new but good information to me.

Image #1 is an uncropped image of one of the frames. Images #2 and #3 are the first 26 consecutive frames. If you look at the images at 100% and look at the fine hairs on the rear of the bee, you can see focus improvements over the first 6 frames. After that there are small changes in focus accuracy due to both camera/lens focus variability and to changes in the bees flight pattern.

This observation is similar to mine. I use L silent burst almost every time for birds at maximum 15fps. For me, good keeper pictures always started after 3rd 4th position only.

My tests with flying swallows using the E-M1.2 resulted in very similar results (posted on some very old DPR post).

This is a good way to compare images. Did you make collage solely for this post, or is there some software or a process you've set up to quickly judge the focus?

My approach is more primal here. I just go through each in Adobe Bridge fullscreen using arrow keys.

• There are times when I get a skittish subject like grasshoppers, I had to remove extension tubes because bringing them into focus plane scared them. Also with multiple times removal of tubes, the lock string of my 10mm tube is broken. I think a quickly removable diopter like DCR 250 can help me better than tubes here. Let me know your views here.

Anyone with input on if achromat like DCR 250 would be optically better than using extension tubes. I have had inputs on my earlier posts where raynox would be better than extension tubes on PL 100-400. But here I am asking for 60 mm macro lens.

One thing for sure is the convenience aspect. The snap-on lens would allow me to change subjects in focus without removing the lens.  I am just confused it Raynox in this combo should be at least on par or possibly better than extension tubes.

gursharan-info wrote:

drj3 wrote:

This is a good way to compare images. Did you make collage solely for this post, or is there some software or a process you've set up to quickly judge the focus?

My approach is more primal here. I just go through each in Adobe Bridge fullscreen using arrow keys.

I did this some time ago, there are other images in my gallery with the 300mm alone checking focus accuracy with bees and swallows.

Each image was simply cropped and all put together in Photoshop.  I did the tests to see how to maximize the chances of getting the image I wanted from a burst.

I am still evaluating the OM1, but I am not getting rid of my E-M1s, they work very well.

drj3 wrote:

CAF focus for moving targets on the E-M1s (E-M1.2 and later) is based on two factors. The lens focus for the specific image and on the focus of the previously exposed images. The number of frames required for obtaining accurate focus prediction will depend on the lens (focus speed and maximum aperture) and the amount of change in focus distance between frames. For things that change focus relatively quickly this can take anywhere from 3-7 frames for the camera to accurately predict focus for the next image. The attached images for a bee in flight (similar to birds in flight in terms of focus) using the 300mm f4 with the MC20 (f8) illustrate the change in focus over frames. The camera frame rate has little to do with the number of images required for accurate focus, so high fps rates will give more accurately focused images in equivalent amounts of time.

Image #1 is an uncropped image o

Can you explain how ProCapture factors into the focus prediction process?  i.e. does the focus acquisition process begin prior to the first exposure when using ProCapture?

MNE wrote:

drj3 wrote:

CAF focus for moving targets on the E-M1s (E-M1.2 and later) is based on two factors. The lens focus for the specific image and on the focus of the previously exposed images. The number of frames required for obtaining accurate focus prediction will depend on the lens (focus speed and maximum aperture) and the amount of change in focus distance between frames. For things that change focus relatively quickly this can take anywhere from 3-7 frames for the camera to accurately predict focus for the next image. The attached images for a bee in flight (similar to birds in flight in terms of focus) using the 300mm f4 with the MC20 (f8) illustrate the change in focus over frames. The camera frame rate has little to do with the number of images required for accurate focus, so high fps rates will give more accurately focused images in equivalent amounts of time.

Image #1 is an uncropped image o

Can you explain how ProCapture factors into the focus prediction process? i.e. does the focus acquisition process begin prior to the first exposure when using ProCapture?

Pro Capture is of little importance to focus prediction, unless it was used with a bird already in flight.  It is useful if the subject does not give sufficient intention movements to allow us to know when a bird is going to change what it is doing.

One taking off will go from no change in distance/direction, to a very large change.  Focus prediction based on prior images with the E-M1s let the camera know how much the distance is changing between frames and thus where the target should be on the next frame as long as target maintains the same speed/direction of movement.

I did try using Pro Capture Low with flying swallows and did not find it to be useful.  However, my testing was done with the 300mm f4 with either the MC14 or MC 20 attached to create images large enough to evaluate focus accuracy with the swallows and it could possibly be useful in other situations with other lenses/birds.

drj3 wrote:

MNE wrote:

Can you explain how ProCapture factors into the focus prediction process? i.e. does the focus acquisition process begin prior to the first exposure when using ProCapture?

Pro Capture is of little importance to focus prediction, unless it was used with a bird already in flight. It is useful if the subject does not give sufficient intention movements to allow us to know when a bird is going to change what it is doing.

One taking off will go from no change in distance/direction, to a very large change. Focus prediction based on prior images with the E-M1s let the camera know how much the distance is changing between frames and thus where the target should be on the next frame as long as target maintains the same speed/direction of movement.

I did try using Pro Capture Low with flying swallows and did not find it to be useful. However, my testing was done with the 300mm f4 with either the MC14 or MC 20 attached to create images large enough to evaluate focus accuracy with the swallows and it could possibly be useful in other situations with other lenses/birds.

Interesting ... thanks for the explanation drj3

This was discussed in this forum some time ago (but I can't find it now!). From what I remember, the magnification obtained with ET decreases with the lens FD. Therefore, it is very good with lenses of small FD, like 30 mm, very useful with 60 mm, and deceases for 100 mm, even less for 400 mm. Which does not mean that it is useless at 400 mm, as you have found, but the effect is not large. OTOH, diopter lenses are the opposite: their magnification effect is relatively small at short focal distances, and increases at large ones.

So, at 400 mm a Raynox or other make of good quality will be definitely much better than extension tubes. But at 60 mm, the diopter lens will not have such a major effect. I found it (the diopter) to be quite useful at 120-150 mm.

However, there is an even better solution: combining both! I advise you to look for the threads started by oneofone25, where he describes quite amazing results using the 60 mm macro, the MC-20 tele-extender (to increase the focal length) and ET that are besides everything else needed to enable use of tele-extenders with the 60 mm (but add their magnification, as well).

Jouko wrote:

gursharan-info wrote:

Three months ago, I bought E-M1 Mark II camera and I have used it extensively for bird photography. Initially, I used Panasonic 100-300 II and now I have settled for PL 100-400. As a combo deal, I also got Kenko 16mm and 10mm extension tubes. This setup has served me well and is giving me more than satisfactory results.

Recently I've added Oly 60mm macro, Godox V860IIo to my arsenal and started macro photography with the setup. Following are my observations so far about my setups. You can add, contradict if you had different observations, and correct me If I am wrong.

Birds and other wildlife:

• For birds, I am mostly using 250-400mm range only. Relying on the Lens OIS has proven more effective than IBIS. The settings I use are posted here .
• Using extension tubes with 100-400 has given me very good results on butterflies, blister beetles, and other bigger macro subjects.
• One issue I have is that while using C-AF my keeper rate (2~3 / 10) is not very good for distant birds or BIF shots. I tend to prepare well for this and have got at least one shot of the subject I see and think of. But I do long for a keeper rate like people have reported here with Oly 100-400. If I get a used one in my country, I will switch for sure. The new one here retails for about $1800.

The keeper rate... 2-3 out from 10 is quite good. Of course it depends on how "easy" shots you are taking, and what kind of limits you have for a "good" shot. 100-400mm lens is never the simplest lens to handle and for sharpness there are many factors to handle - holding and technique, shutter speeds, distance, breathing and other shaking, atmosphere... Using a tripod or handheld, IS vs OIS vs both vs none... And then the bird moves... As for the differences between Oly and Pana 100-400: there may be some, but mostly irrelevant if you have a good copy in your hand.

So, if you want more keepers, just keep shooting! There is the delete-button for those no-keepers. I should use it more...

Lol.. Yes..!!

Macro Pictures:

• I had a couple of photo walks for the macro in the last 2 weeks. I am really impressed with what I could achieve with this tiny lens, a flash, and a proper diffuser.

• 

• The focusing capability is slow at times, and I have missed many bugs during the focus time. Maybe practice will make me better.
• Using the viewfinder with setup seems difficult and I relied on the live view screen more while simultaneously tracking the bug with naked eyes while I am setting up the frame.
• For smaller bugs, I tried using the extension tubes with a 60mm lens. While it gives good results with flash but there is some light loss observed. Also, the focus gets wafer-thin with tubes. So, when I was holding a leaf in one hand and a camera with a big flash in another hand, many of my subjects were slightly out of focus because of some movement.
• There are times when I get a skittish subject like grasshoppers, I had to remove extension tubes because bringing them into focus plane scared them. Also with multiple times removal of tubes, the lock string of my 10mm tube is broken. I think a quickly removable diopter like DCR 250 can help me better than tubes here. Let me know your views here.

I suppose the 60mm is best as is, going down to 1:1. Also focus stacking can be used. I don't have that lens, still use the old 50mm f2 macro, but but... Both can be used, the tubes and/or the achromatic macro lens. Raynox versions sem to be very popular.

I use tubes if needed, but you loose some light with the tubes - it's just physics. The longer tube the less light. Macro filters work a bit different way, so the loss is less. Which is better IQ wise, depends on the combination.

And you are right, the DOF is thin with extreme magnifications. You may even ask which DOF. But with focus stacking you'll get some.

BTW, you can also use the tubes with the 100-400...

Yes, I used the tubes with this lens before buying the 60mm macro.

The flash... Godox V860IIo is quite large. For macro with 60mm lens I would get a smaller one, either a dedicated macro version or something like Godox TT350 - or Oly FL 600R or older FL36 (R). They are easier to work with, and have enough power for close-ups. The 860 works fine with the 100-400 and birds, if you need some fill light.

I realized that after buying. I was suggested 860 for faster recycle time so it will support focus stacking and bracketing. TT350 wasn't available in local market and FL600R is way too expensive here for what it provides. For size, I do regret I could've waited to TT350

For now, I am separating my targets, i.e. if I decide on macro on a garden, or forest area walks, I will do that only. Removing the diffuser setup and mounting a zoom lens in between can be cumbersome, not to mention the moments/clicks I would miss while doing that. Will add a second faster body like E-M1x for birding when I can afford one.

Maybe I should do that too...

I hope you are soon able to do that

Have a nice day!

Jouko
'The best camera in the world is the one you have with you when you need it'
https://www.instagram.com/jouko.k.lehto/
http://lehtokukka.smugmug.com/
http://jouko-lehto.artistwebsites.com/
https://joukolehto.blogspot.fi/ - Lenses for mFT-cameras
https://joukolehto.blogspot.fi/2015/12/what-to-dowith-camera-during-winter.html

mchnz wrote:

gursharan-info wrote:

Macro Pictures:

...

• The focusing capability is slow at times, and I have missed many bugs during the focus time. Maybe practice will make me better.

It may be the 60mm macro, compared to ordinary lenses, it is said to be slower focusing, partly due to the longer focusing range. Using the limiter may help, as will getting the lens into the approximate ballpark so it only has to make minor corrections.

That is mainly due to my ability to see in the camera and also tracking the subject with naked eye, with a big diffuser blocking the view. I am a beginner at using flash and diffusers, that's why.

Pedagydusz wrote:

This was discussed in this forum some time ago (but I can't find it now!). From what I remember, the magnification obtained with ET decreases with the lens FD. Therefore, it is very good with lenses of small FD, like 30 mm, very useful with 60 mm, and deceases for 100 mm, even less for 400 mm. Which does not mean that it is useless at 400 mm, as you have found, but the effect is not large. OTOH, diopter lenses are the opposite: their magnification effect is relatively small at short focal distances, and increases at large ones.

So, at 400 mm a Raynox or other make of good quality will be definitely much better than extension tubes. But at 60 mm, the diopter lens will not have such a major effect. I found it (the diopter) to be quite useful at 120-150 mm.

Interesting.

However, there is an even better solution: combining both! I advise you to look for the threads started by oneofone25, where he describes quite amazing results using the 60 mm macro, the MC-20 tele-extender (to increase the focal length) and ET that are besides everything else needed to enable use of tele-extenders with the 60 mm (but add their magnification, as well).

Yes, I have seen posts by him. I follow Ethan even on facebook.

gursharan-info wrote:

Three months ago, I bought E-M1 Mark II camera and I have used it extensively for bird photography. Initially, I used Panasonic 100-300 II and now I have settled for PL 100-400. As a combo deal, I also got Kenko 16mm and 10mm extension tubes. This setup has served me well and is giving me more than satisfactory results.

Recently I've added Oly 60mm macro, Godox V860IIo to my arsenal and started macro photography with the setup. Following are my observations so far about my setups. You can add, contradict if you had different observations, and correct me If I am wrong.

Birds and other wildlife:

• For birds, I am mostly using 250-400mm range only. Relying on the Lens OIS has proven more effective than IBIS. The settings I use are posted here .
• Using extension tubes with 100-400 has given me very good results on butterflies, blister beetles, and other bigger macro subjects.
• One issue I have is that while using C-AF my keeper rate (2~3 / 10) is not very good for distant birds or BIF shots. I tend to prepare well for this and have got at least one shot of the subject I see and think of. But I do long for a keeper rate like people have reported here with Oly 100-400. If I get a used one in my country, I will switch for sure. The new one here retails for about $1800.

Macro Pictures:

• I had a couple of photo walks for the macro in the last 2 weeks. I am really impressed with what I could achieve with this tiny lens, a flash, and a proper diffuser.

• 

• The focusing capability is slow at times, and I have missed many bugs during the focus time. Maybe practice will make me better.
• Using the viewfinder with setup seems difficult and I relied on the live view screen more while simultaneously tracking the bug with naked eyes while I am setting up the frame.
• For smaller bugs, I tried using the extension tubes with a 60mm lens. While it gives good results with flash but there is some light loss observed. Also, the focus gets wafer-thin with tubes. So, when I was holding a leaf in one hand and a camera with a big flash in another hand, many of my subjects were slightly out of focus because of some movement.
• There are times when I get a skittish subject like grasshoppers, I had to remove extension tubes because bringing them into focus plane scared them. Also with multiple times removal of tubes, the lock string of my 10mm tube is broken. I think a quickly removable diopter like DCR 250 can help me better than tubes here. Let me know your views here.

For now, I am separating my targets, i.e. if I decide on macro on a garden, or forest area walks, I will do that only. Removing the diffuser setup and mounting a zoom lens in between can be cumbersome, not to mention the moments/clicks I would miss while doing that. Will add a second faster body like E-M1x for birding when I can afford one.

Except for a couple of points my 4 year journey with the Em1-Mk2 emulates yours almost exactly.

The main difference being concerned with acquiring initial focus. My Em1-mk2 and PL100-400 almost always gets the first shot perfectly in focus. It doesn't necessarily get the next 6 all in focus, it  frequently misses a shot between the 3 & 7th frame.

I always try and shoot with the lens wide open. This helps c-af focus acquisition and also keeps burst speed high.

When first released I found the Em1-Mk2 focus unreliable and wouldn't use it for commercial work, preferring to stick with my trusty gx8. But after a couple of firmware upgrades the mis-focus issue was largely resolved.  However for important work I always took a burst of 3 just to guarantee success.

I always use electronic shutter for macro and birds.

The focus speed with the pl100-400 is seriously quick, but the 60mm less so, but for me it has never been a problem. Using the macro lens with the tubes and a 2x converter is seriously challenging as the magnification is so high.  But with just a single tube fitted to the.acroens it's a lot more forgiving.

The main thing I found was that it took me about 6 months to really get consistently great results from the system.

gursharan-info wrote:

Pedagydusz wrote:

This was discussed in this forum some time ago (but I can't find it now!). From what I remember, the magnification obtained with ET decreases with the lens FD. Therefore, it is very good with lenses of small FD, like 30 mm, very useful with 60 mm, and deceases for 100 mm, even less for 400 mm. Which does not mean that it is useless at 400 mm, as you have found, but the effect is not large. OTOH, diopter lenses are the opposite: their magnification effect is relatively small at short focal distances, and increases at large ones.

So, at 400 mm a Raynox or other make of good quality will be definitely much better than extension tubes. But at 60 mm, the diopter lens will not have such a major effect. I found it (the diopter) to be quite useful at 120-150 mm.

Interesting.

However, there is an even better solution: combining both! I advise you to look for the threads started by oneofone25, where he describes quite amazing results using the 60 mm macro, the MC-20 tele-extender (to increase the focal length) and ET that are besides everything else needed to enable use of tele-extenders with the 60 mm (but add their magnification, as well).

Yes, I have seen posts by him. I follow Ethan even on facebook.

:waves:

Hello!  Any specific questions, I am here to answer....

oneofone25 wrote:

gursharan-info wrote:

Pedagydusz wrote:

This was discussed in this forum some time ago (but I can't find it now!). From what I remember, the magnification obtained with ET decreases with the lens FD. Therefore, it is very good with lenses of small FD, like 30 mm, very useful with 60 mm, and deceases for 100 mm, even less for 400 mm. Which does not mean that it is useless at 400 mm, as you have found, but the effect is not large. OTOH, diopter lenses are the opposite: their magnification effect is relatively small at short focal distances, and increases at large ones.

So, at 400 mm a Raynox or other make of good quality will be definitely much better than extension tubes. But at 60 mm, the diopter lens will not have such a major effect. I found it (the diopter) to be quite useful at 120-150 mm.

Interesting.

However, there is an even better solution: combining both! I advise you to look for the threads started by oneofone25, where he describes quite amazing results using the 60 mm macro, the MC-20 tele-extender (to increase the focal length) and ET that are besides everything else needed to enable use of tele-extenders with the 60 mm (but add their magnification, as well).

Yes, I have seen posts by him. I follow Ethan even on facebook.

:waves:

Hello! Any specific questions, I am here to answer....

Ethan, my question is within these points.

gursharan-info wrote:

• For smaller bugs, I tried using the extension tubes with a 60mm lens. While it gives good results with flash but there is some light loss observed. Also, the focus gets wafer-thin with tubes. So, when I was holding a leaf in one hand and a camera with a big flash in another hand, many of my subjects were slightly out of focus because of some movement.
• There are times when I get a skittish subject like grasshoppers, I had to remove extension tubes because bringing them into focus plane scared them. Also with multiple times removal of tubes, the lock string of my 10mm tube is broken. I think a quickly removable diopter like DCR 250 can help me better than tubes here. Let me know your views here.

I tend to do only walk-around macros in the parks or forests nearby. So find changing extension tubes, a hassle when I need to frame insets/bugs of different sizes. Would I benefit more with a Raynox 250? Quality-wise, I have read conflicting points as some say tubes would be better, some say the diopter. 
Also, I do not want to go the teleconverter route as of now as you've demonstrated in your threads.

Bump 

gursharan-info wrote:

oneofone25 wrote:

gursharan-info wrote:

Pedagydusz wrote:

This was discussed in this forum some time ago (but I can't find it now!). From what I remember, the magnification obtained with ET decreases with the lens FD. Therefore, it is very good with lenses of small FD, like 30 mm, very useful with 60 mm, and deceases for 100 mm, even less for 400 mm. Which does not mean that it is useless at 400 mm, as you have found, but the effect is not large. OTOH, diopter lenses are the opposite: their magnification effect is relatively small at short focal distances, and increases at large ones.

So, at 400 mm a Raynox or other make of good quality will be definitely much better than extension tubes. But at 60 mm, the diopter lens will not have such a major effect. I found it (the diopter) to be quite useful at 120-150 mm.

Interesting.

However, there is an even better solution: combining both! I advise you to look for the threads started by oneofone25, where he describes quite amazing results using the 60 mm macro, the MC-20 tele-extender (to increase the focal length) and ET that are besides everything else needed to enable use of tele-extenders with the 60 mm (but add their magnification, as well).

Yes, I have seen posts by him. I follow Ethan even on facebook.

:waves:

Hello! Any specific questions, I am here to answer....

Ethan, my question is within these points.

gursharan-info wrote:

• For smaller bugs, I tried using the extension tubes with a 60mm lens. While it gives good results with flash but there is some light loss observed. Also, the focus gets wafer-thin with tubes. So, when I was holding a leaf in one hand and a camera with a big flash in another hand, many of my subjects were slightly out of focus because of some movement.
• There are times when I get a skittish subject like grasshoppers, I had to remove extension tubes because bringing them into focus plane scared them. Also with multiple times removal of tubes, the lock string of my 10mm tube is broken. I think a quickly removable diopter like DCR 250 can help me better than tubes here. Let me know your views here.

I tend to do only walk-around macros in the parks or forests nearby. So find changing extension tubes, a hassle when I need to frame insets/bugs of different sizes. Would I benefit more with a Raynox 250? Quality-wise, I have read conflicting points as some say tubes would be better, some say the diopter.
Also, I do not want to go the teleconverter route as of now as you've demonstrated in your threads.

I personally like the Raynox.  I see no degradation of the detail, and the Raynox 250 is sharp corner to corner.  I attach it with a 43MM to 46mm coupler so that I don't have to attach with the snap coupler the Raynox comes with.  Lighting is never an issue.    Then you can also quickly spin it off when you want to just use the lens as is.  But you can always just have the magnification/zoom be farther down with the Raynox 250 attached.

With the Raynox 250 you'll get around 1.75x magnification without any tubes or teleconverter.

oneofone25 wrote:

gursharan-info wrote:

oneofone25 wrote:

gursharan-info wrote:

Pedagydusz wrote:

This was discussed in this forum some time ago (but I can't find it now!). From what I remember, the magnification obtained with ET decreases with the lens FD. Therefore, it is very good with lenses of small FD, like 30 mm, very useful with 60 mm, and deceases for 100 mm, even less for 400 mm. Which does not mean that it is useless at 400 mm, as you have found, but the effect is not large. OTOH, diopter lenses are the opposite: their magnification effect is relatively small at short focal distances, and increases at large ones.

So, at 400 mm a Raynox or other make of good quality will be definitely much better than extension tubes. But at 60 mm, the diopter lens will not have such a major effect. I found it (the diopter) to be quite useful at 120-150 mm.

Interesting.

However, there is an even better solution: combining both! I advise you to look for the threads started by oneofone25, where he describes quite amazing results using the 60 mm macro, the MC-20 tele-extender (to increase the focal length) and ET that are besides everything else needed to enable use of tele-extenders with the 60 mm (but add their magnification, as well).

Yes, I have seen posts by him. I follow Ethan even on facebook.

:waves:

Hello! Any specific questions, I am here to answer....

Ethan, my question is within these points.

gursharan-info wrote:

• For smaller bugs, I tried using the extension tubes with a 60mm lens. While it gives good results with flash but there is some light loss observed. Also, the focus gets wafer-thin with tubes. So, when I was holding a leaf in one hand and a camera with a big flash in another hand, many of my subjects were slightly out of focus because of some movement.
• There are times when I get a skittish subject like grasshoppers, I had to remove extension tubes because bringing them into focus plane scared them. Also with multiple times removal of tubes, the lock string of my 10mm tube is broken. I think a quickly removable diopter like DCR 250 can help me better than tubes here. Let me know your views here.

I tend to do only walk-around macros in the parks or forests nearby. So find changing extension tubes, a hassle when I need to frame insets/bugs of different sizes. Would I benefit more with a Raynox 250? Quality-wise, I have read conflicting points as some say tubes would be better, some say the diopter.
Also, I do not want to go the teleconverter route as of now as you've demonstrated in your threads.

I personally like the Raynox. I see no degradation of the detail, and the Raynox 250 is sharp corner to corner. I attach it with a 43MM to 46mm coupler so that I don't have to attach with the snap coupler the Raynox comes with. Lighting is never an issue. Then you can also quickly spin it off when you want to just use the lens as is. But you can always just have the magnification/zoom be farther down with the Raynox 250 attached.

With the Raynox 250 you'll get around 1.75x magnification without any tubes or teleconverter.

I went with the Raynox suggestion. For my usage, I find this combo good enough. I don't think I would need to stack extension tubes in the field anytime soon. Pleased with results so far. I have posted my experience here in this thread .

Thanks to all who suggested in favor of Raynox DCR250.