High IQ BUT Awkward to use

I find that almost anytime I use this lens, it is usually set to the wrong focus-range, and quite awkward to change.  Like its image quality, but capturing the image comes first.

erichK wrote:

I find that almost anytime I use this lens, it is usually set to the wrong focus-range, and quite awkward to change. Like its image quality, but capturing the image comes first.

What I do is set the focus limiter straight to 1:1 then move in closer to the subject until its in focus. MF ofcourse or Single Focus if I want the camera to lock in at the last moment.

After awhile you get a sense of the distance 1:1 represents.

I don't really understand this complaint. If you can't get used to the focus limiter, why not just leave it on the full focus range setting?

In my experience it stays where it's set and isn't easy to turn accidentally.

That would put it on a par with other m4/3 macro lenses that simply lack a focus limiter.

To me being able to quickly snap to 1:1 magnification is a nice usability feature.

I agree that it's awkward. I've pretty much gotten used to it and it doesn't seem as bad now as it did when I first got it.  Any range limiter switch is easy to forget that you set it and can mess you up, but at least some of them are more ergonomic.   I would prefer it to spring back from 1:1 to full range, but that's because I mostly just use those two settings.

erichK wrote:

I find that almost anytime I use this lens, it is usually set to the wrong focus-range, and quite awkward to change. Like its image quality, but capturing the image comes first.

I gave up on mine. Went for the simpler and snappier 30mm f3.5 macro instead.

I even did a user review here a year ago:

Easy macro on the cheap: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

glassoholic wrote:

Maybe the new Pro macro coming will solve all complaints?

Possibly.

But if the new prime was faster like, say, F2. Then it could be used like an enhanced 75mm f1.8 (weather-sealing, Pro features) for portrait/short telephoto applications.

bluevellet wrote:

I gave up on mine. Went for the simpler and snappier 30mm f3.5 macro instead.

I prefer the 60mm macro for several reasons. Of course, there are also some very good reasons why someone would prefer the excellent 30mm macro...however, I can't imagine that that the presence of a limiter switch that isn't intrusive, is virtually impossible to change accidentally, and never needs to be touched it if you want simplicity would be one of them.

Lifesucks wrote:

Yes i agree its an awkward lens to use.....not sure what oly were thinking when they designed it but it is what it is i guess.

Well, it is much faster focusing either MF or S-AF if you set the limiter to the correct range. It is a PITA to have to turn the focus ring for quite a while to get in the range of focusing. Typically, though, in using it for close to 1:1, just set it at 1:1.

I often find myself grabbing my other macro lens when going out to shoot bugs and not wanting to deal with the olys quirkyness...and do think its better for indoor use.

I shoot a ton of MF moss images with the 60 macro, mostly between 2:1 and 1:1. I don't care whether the lens is 1:1 or whatever, I just want a certain composition, whatever the magnification is. Sometimes I use it for flowers.

It is very effective for shooting bees as long as you are at their level and not hovering above. This is mostly well more distant - like 8" to 16". It is great for that, shot in S-AF.

Cyvan wrote:

erichK wrote:

I find that almost anytime I use this lens, it is usually set to the wrong focus-range, and quite awkward to change. Like its image quality, but capturing the image comes first.

What I do is set the focus limiter straight to 1:1 then move in closer to the subject until its in focus. MF ofcourse or Single Focus if I want the camera to lock in at the last moment.

After awhile you get a sense of the distance 1:1 represents.

The reason the lens has a 1:1 focus setting is this:

As long as you do NOT change focus away from 1:1, and only focus by changing the distance to the object, you can take measurements of objects in the picture - without having to place a ruler besides it before taking the picture.

Long explanation:

At 1:1 setting, a 10mm object will be 10mm on the sensor. Always. Since we know the width and height of the sensor, we easily measure any object on the PC monitor or print and calculate its original dimension. You may have to calibrate this the first time you get the lens. Each lens has an FL tolerance of around +/-3%, and the software lens correction also introduces an error. So first thing to do with a new lens is take a picture of a ruler at 1:1, and establish the individual exact magnification ratio. From then on that factor can be used whenever the lens is preset with the focus limiter to 1:1. The lens has a red sliding indicator for magnification, but it is not possible to read this accurately as it is way to short and lacks fine graduations (a disadvantage of the fly-by-wire focus). Only the 1:1 preset is always, very quickly and very accurately, repeatable - thanks to the very useful mechanical (NOT fly-by-wire) 1:1 preset in the focus limiter switch.

bluevellet wrote:

glassoholic wrote:

Maybe the new Pro macro coming will solve all complaints?

Possibly.

But if the new prime was faster like, say, F2. Then it could be used like an enhanced 75mm f1.8 (weather-sealing, Pro features) for portrait/short telephoto applications.

It will be f3.5 I believe and there's a pretty big difference between 150mm FF and 180mm FF equivalent. Two very different purposes, 90mm MFT is too long for general portraits and 180mm equivalent ain't short tele either, which would be 135mm (67.5mm) equivalent or less. 90mm is actual an awkward FL outside Macro; too short for wildlife, too long for general landscape, portrait or street photography. Of course there's exceptions to every rules, but I wouldn't have much use for 90mm other than macro.

David5833 wrote:

I agree that it's awkward. I've pretty much gotten used to it and it doesn't seem as bad now as it did when I first got it. Any range limiter switch is easy to forget that you set it and can mess you up, but at least some of them are more ergonomic. I would prefer it to spring back from 1:1 to full range, but that's because I mostly just use those two settings.

I  do, too.  Of course a large part of my problem is that I don't regularly do macro photography, but this would certainly make its use simpler and quicker for me.

We all have our own shooting styles and favourite subjects.  I really enjoyed shooting with the FT's 50f2 macro and simply find the 60 f2.8 too fiddly, especially shooting outdoors, where it's impossible to change the focus range with gloves on.

The suggestions about more effectively dealing with 1:1 are appreciated, though.

David5833 wrote:

I agree that it's awkward. I've pretty much gotten used to it and it doesn't seem as bad now as it did when I first got it. Any range limiter switch is easy to forget that you set it and can mess you up, but at least some of them are more ergonomic. I would prefer it to spring back from 1:1 to full range, but that's because I mostly just use those two settings.

If you want 1:1 then you're also shooting close objects, so springing back to the 0.19-0.4 AF range is sensible. Besides, 1:1 is most meaningful in MF - so it doesn't matter which AF range it springs back to. The only time I use 1:1 with AF is in the rare cases that AF gets fixated on the wrong subject.

Maybe I'm missing something, so what benefit would you get if 1:1 sprang back to the 0.19-0.4 AF range?

I've learned to set it the AF range to 0.19 - infinity whenever I dismount the lens but that lesson took many many years of misfortune.

Bassam Guy wrote:

David5833 wrote:

I agree that it's awkward. I've pretty much gotten used to it and it doesn't seem as bad now as it did when I first got it. Any range limiter switch is easy to forget that you set it and can mess you up, but at least some of them are more ergonomic. I would prefer it to spring back from 1:1 to full range, but that's because I mostly just use those two settings.

If you want 1:1 then you're also shooting close objects, so springing back to the 0.19-0.4 AF range is sensible. Besides, 1:1 is most meaningful in MF - so it doesn't matter which AF range it springs back to. The only time I use 1:1 with AF is in the rare cases that AF gets fixated on the wrong subject.

Maybe I'm missing something, so what benefit would you get if 1:1 sprang back to the 0.19-0.4 AF range?

I think you mean back to the 0.19 - infinity?

I've learned to set it the AF range to 0.19 - infinity whenever I dismount the lens but that lesson took many many years of misfortune.

When I turn the switch to 1:1, it's because I want maximum magnification and that is the fastest and surest way to get it. At that point, I usually move the camera to focus. Hunting would probably be minimal if I then backed off and used AF in full range because the lens would already be in the close focus range. Plus, I would be ready to focus on anything, I wouldn't be surprised by not being able to focus on something because I forgot to switch to full range. I'm usually shooting stationary macro subjects anyway, so a little hunting wouldn't be a big deal, whereas a lot of hunting and never focusing if I'm in the wrong limiter range would be.

I should add that it might be a different story if the camera didn't have as good an AF system as the EM5iii.

David5833 wrote:

Bassam Guy wrote:

David5833 wrote:

I agree that it's awkward. I've pretty much gotten used to it and it doesn't seem as bad now as it did when I first got it. Any range limiter switch is easy to forget that you set it and can mess you up, but at least some of them are more ergonomic. I would prefer it to spring back from 1:1 to full range, but that's because I mostly just use those two settings.

If you want 1:1 then you're also shooting close objects, so springing back to the 0.19-0.4 AF range is sensible. Besides, 1:1 is most meaningful in MF - so it doesn't matter which AF range it springs back to. The only time I use 1:1 with AF is in the rare cases that AF gets fixated on the wrong subject.

Maybe I'm missing something, so what benefit would you get if 1:1 sprang back to the 0.19-0.4 AF range?

I think you mean back to the 0.19 - infinity?

Yes, my mistake, 0.19 - infinity.

I've learned to set it the AF range to 0.19 - infinity whenever I dismount the lens but that lesson took many many years of misfortune.

When I turn the switch to 1:1, it's because I want maximum magnification and that is the fastest and surest way to get it. At that point, I usually move the camera to focus. Hunting would probably be minimal if I then backed off and used AF in full range because the lens would already be in the close focus range. Plus, I would be ready to focus on anything, I wouldn't be surprised by not being able to focus on something because I forgot to switch to full range. I'm usually shooting stationary macro subjects anyway, so a little hunting wouldn't be a big deal, whereas a lot of hunting and never focusing if I'm in the wrong limiter range would be.

I should add that it might be a different story if the camera didn't have as good an AF system as the EM5iii.