High IQ BUT Awkward to use

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.

That's why I love the Olympus OM Telescoping Extension Tube.

I can "twist, slide, twist" and go from infinity to life-size while my buddies are still going "twist, twist, twist, TWIST!"

Jan Steinman 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.

That's why I love the Olympus OM Telescoping Extension Tube.

I can "twist, slide, twist" and go from infinity to life-size while my buddies are still going "twist, twist, twist, TWIST!"

How does that work, are you saying with that extension tube attached you can somehow still focus a lens to infinity? Are there lens elements inside that extension tube that make this possible? Or will it only work with the special 135/4.5 macro lens? Please explain how it works, I cannot figure it out

PS: now I got it! That very special 135mm lens can only be used with auto bellows or this telescopic auto tube, nothing else, because the rear of that lens extends beyond the lens mount. It cannot be mounted directly on a camera. http://alanwood.net/olympus/macro-lens-135-45.html

So, if you use that telescopic tube with the special 135 lens AND an m43 adapter on an m43 camera, can you still focus from infinity to 0.43 (FF equivalent) magnification?

But that is actually worse than the 12-40/2.8 lens which does 0.6 (FF equivalent) magnification from infinity without needing any tube. I fail to see where the advantage is, unless you still shoot 135 film.

cba_melbourne wrote:

Jan Steinman 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.

That's why I love the Olympus OM Telescoping Extension Tube.

I can "twist, slide, twist" and go from infinity to life-size while my buddies are still going "twist, twist, twist, TWIST!"

So, if you use that telescopic tube with the special 135 lens AND an m43 adapter on an m43 camera, can you still focus from infinity to 0.43 (FF equivalent) magnification?

But that is actually worse than the 12-40/2.8 lens which does 0.6 (FF equivalent) magnification from infinity without needing any tube. I fail to see where the advantage is, unless you still shoot 135 film.

The advantage is that you can attach any OM-mount lens to the front of the TET, not just the 135/4.5.

In fact, they made three other lenses, that, like the 135/4.5, required the use of either the TET or a bellows. These would get you all the way to sixteen times life-size, and they were optimized for different ranges.

I really like the exquisite OM Zuiko 90mm ƒ/2 macro on the front of the TET. That will go well past life size.

But @erichK was saying he found the 60 macro awkward to use, and I was pointing out how the TET with the 135 was much quicker than an extended helicoid macro. As you point out, the 12-40/2.8 does this in about 100° turn of the focus ring, the down-side being that manual focus is really tricky at high magnification.

Of course, every advantage is someone else's disadvantage, and all lens designs are a compromise to the extent that the design is optimized for a particular task. My advantageous comparison of the TET/135 was to any extended helicoid, where you have to do a lot of twisting to move from macro to "normal" focusing distances.

cba_melbourne wrote:

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.

This is why the Telescoping Extension Tube I mentioned — as well as almost all bellows used for macro — has a millimetre scale on it.

With the millimetre scale and the focal length of the lens, one can always calculate the final reproduction ratio. This is because in the past, macro was very often used for scientific photography.

This is still possible with modern electronic lenses with software that lets you read all the EXIF data, including the focus distance.

erichK wrote:

I really enjoyed shooting with the FT's 50f2 macro…

Optically, that was an amazing lens!

Too bad they hobbled it with a plasticy body and "focus by wire."

I have one that is a paperweight now, because it will no longer focus. Olympus wants more than the current used price to repair it — and they're not even certain they can, as the electronic parts for it are no longer available.

Days are over when anyone with tools and talent and a tube of grease could CLA a mechanical lens and make it good as new. All these electronic lenses are going to stop working someday, and there will be no parts to fix them.

Jan Steinman wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Jan Steinman 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.

That's why I love the Olympus OM Telescoping Extension Tube.

I can "twist, slide, twist" and go from infinity to life-size while my buddies are still going "twist, twist, twist, TWIST!"

So, if you use that telescopic tube with the special 135 lens AND an m43 adapter on an m43 camera, can you still focus from infinity to 0.43 (FF equivalent) magnification?

But that is actually worse than the 12-40/2.8 lens which does 0.6 (FF equivalent) magnification from infinity without needing any tube. I fail to see where the advantage is, unless you still shoot 135 film.

The advantage is that you can attach any OM-mount lens to the front of the TET, not just the 135/4.5.

In fact, they made three other lenses, that, like the 135/4.5, required the use of either the TET or a bellows. These would get you all the way to sixteen times life-size, and they were optimized for different ranges.

I really like the exquisite OM Zuiko 90mm ƒ/2 macro on the front of the TET. That will go well past life size.

But @erichK was saying he found the 60 macro awkward to use, and I was pointing out how the TET with the 135 was much quicker than an extended helicoid macro. As you point out, the 12-40/2.8 does this in about 100° turn of the focus ring, the down-side being that manual focus is really tricky at high magnification.

Of course, every advantage is someone else's disadvantage, and all lens designs are a compromise to the extent that the design is optimized for a particular task. My advantageous comparison of the TET/135 was to any extended helicoid, where you have to do a lot of twisting to move from macro to "normal" focusing distances.

Thank you for the explanation. I still wonder why Olympus ever called that 135 lens a macro lens, when even with the quite long fully extended TET it is not anywhere near capable of 1:1, which is the minimum magnification definition of a macro lens.

That is quite a long lens contraption, only to do a closeup magnification of 0.43X. Compared to the Olympus m43 60mm which in comparison does 2X FF equivalent magnification. But yes, we have to remember back then there was no IBIS, and doing a handheld 0.5x flower closeup with a slow high resolution film may have needed a tripod and bellows/TET. Times have changed.

Many of the shots we routinely take for granted handheld with the 60/2.8 m43 lens, were in fact quite challenging to do back in the film days. The huge selection of macro accessories as made especially by Olympus, are testimony. We are very fortunate today - yet we complain about the hassle of operating a focus limiter switch

This macro accessory chart from an OM1 camera user manual does not even show the more exotic TET and it's lenses:

Jan Steinman wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

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.

This is why the Telescoping Extension Tube I mentioned — as well as almost all bellows used for macro — has a millimetre scale on it.

With the millimetre scale and the focal length of the lens, one can always calculate the final reproduction ratio. This is because in the past, macro was very often used for scientific photography.

Yes, and you could measure distances directly on the film using a graduated loupe. I still have this excellent Swiss made 8x F+C Optik model, sadly it does not get much use anymore today

However, you still had to determine a correction factor for your individual lens sample. Back then lenses had even greater focal length tolerances than today. Today the FL tolerance is only about +/-3%.

Measuring distances on a print was much harder, not only because the lens used in the enlarger also had a focal length tolerance and distortions on it's own. But the photographic print paper did also shrink/expand considerably depending on moisture, up to 10%. Later RC papers had easily 10 time less expansion with humidity.

This is still possible with modern electronic lenses with software that lets you read all the EXIF data, including the focus distance.

Yes, the free EXIF tool (https://exiftool.org/) will give you this information. You have to remember to turn off the lens corrections in the PP software, then you can measure directly on the display monitor.

But, remember you need to determine separate correction factors for your individual lens for every magnification you intend to use. Because focal length of macro lenses can change dramatically, up to 100%, at closeup distances!!!And now you hit a huge problem with modern fly-by-wire lenses: how do you determine the magnification? With the 60mm it is easy but only if you preset it to 1:1 with the limiter and do not touch the focus anymore. Any other setting and you introduce a huge error because the readout scale is way too coarse. And you cannot read the accurate exif data, before having taken the picture in the fist place

If you use microscope camera software, it lets you even measure with the mouse on the screen. Now that is very comfortable and fast, since you can zoom-in to measure accurately and the software automatically takes the zoom factor into consideration. Still have to calibrate your lens the first time though.

Jan Steinman wrote:

erichK wrote:

I really enjoyed shooting with the FT's 50f2 macro…

Optically, that was an amazing lens!

Too bad they hobbled it with a plasticy body and "focus by wire."

I have one that is a paperweight now, because it will no longer focus. Olympus wants more than the current used price to repair it — and they're not even certain they can, as the electronic parts for it are no longer available.

Days are over when anyone with tools and talent and a tube of grease could CLA a mechanical lens and make it good as new. All these electronic lenses are going to stop working someday, and there will be no parts to fix them.

What makes it worse, you cannot get hold of a service manual for any electronic Olympus lens or camera. Even if you were prepared to pay for it. At least from Panasonic you can get the service manual for many of their lenses online, most even as free downloads. If you do repairs yourself, that is a potent incentive to buy Panasonic gear.

cba_melbourne wrote:

This macro accessory chart from an OM1 camera user manual does not even show the more exotic TET and it's lenses:

They probably came later. That chart only shows the older, PMT-mount 38mm and 20mm macro lenses.

Then, there was this beast that never got beyond prototype stage!

Jan Steinman wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

This macro accessory chart from an OM1 camera user manual does not even show the more exotic TET and it's lenses:

They probably came later. That chart only shows the older, PMT-mount 38mm and 20mm macro lenses.

Then, there was this beast that never got beyond prototype stage!

For m43 there is always this electronic reverse lens macro adapter from Novoflex. It lets you retain full electronic control for ordinary m43 AF lenses mounted in reverse for macro purposes:

If used for example with the excellent 12-100/4 lens in reverse and set to 15mm FL, a magnification of 4:1 is possible. And even more if combining the reverse mount adapter with a bellows:

https://www.novoflex.de/en/products-637/macro/reverse-lens-adapter-canon-eos/reverse-adapter-microfourthirds/reverse-adapter-mft-retro.html

There seems to be nobody in this group using this m43 Novoflex reverse adapter. It is not that expensive, just 379 Euro. It looks like people here prefer to use a macro lens lens with tubes and the MC14 or MC20 teleconverter for such magnifications.

I think the market volume is just not there anymore, for every camera maker to create their own line of macro accessories. Like they did in the film days. An opportunity for niche manufacturers like the German Novoflex. They can make bellows etc to suit any modern camera by using adapters, thereby increasing their potential customer base across all camera system brands.

For the masses, there are macro loupe attachments for smartphones. Or they make their own macro lens for $2:

And the results are likely better than an OM1 film camera with $2,000 (in 1980's money) macro attachments from 40 years ago. The small sensor size of phones is an advantage in macro photography. Kids eager to experiment have it sooo easy nowdays .

I mean, the results for $2 and some diy time are absolutely mind blowing, if you look at them with the eyes of a wealthy and dedicated amateur macro photographer of 40 years ago.