R7 and Macro

koenkooi wrote:

dwkdnvr wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

I see you've used Olympus before - it would definitely be worth checking out the OM-1 before you decide. More expensive though.

It really does seem that the R7 and OM-1 are the 2 bodies to look at if you're considering the areas where crop has advantages or at least where the downsides are mitigated - telephoto/wildlife and macro. The OM-1 is more expensive, but has the very good Oly 60mm macro available which evens out the pricing if you're pairing the R7 with either of the 100mm lenses.

I'm considering the R7 + RF 100-400 + a macro, but was considering the EF-S 60mm on an adapter. Probably not close to the performance of the 100's, but at $300-ish used it's an easier first step and it does seem to be one of the better regarded EF-S lenses.

My copy of the EF-S 60mm is sharper than my (now sold) copies of the EF100 non-L and EF100L, when used on an M6II. I sadly didn’t compare it to the RF100L when I rented an R7.

Sadly there is no way to attach the mandatory tripod ring on the EF-S lens. That is a construction fault that immediately disqualifies this lens for macro use in my opinion. And no, it's not about the weight it's a about the compositional freedoms the tripod ring gives you as you rotate around the optical axis, so a once correctly aligned (plane of focus and height) position is much easier to achieve because you can rotate the camera as a last step to achieve the intended composition, something that you will not achieve by any other means unless you got hours to spare.

dwkdnvr wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

I see you've used Olympus before - it would definitely be worth checking out the OM-1 before you decide. More expensive though.

It really does seem that the R7 and OM-1 are the 2 bodies to look at if you're considering the areas where crop has advantages or at least where the downsides are mitigated - telephoto/wildlife and macro. The OM-1 is more expensive, but has the very good Oly 60mm macro available which evens out the pricing if you're pairing the R7 with either of the 100mm lenses.

I'm considering the R7 + RF 100-400 + a macro, but was considering the EF-S 60mm on an adapter. Probably not close to the performance of the 100's, but at $300-ish used it's an easier first step and it does seem to be one of the better regarded EF-S lenses.

I think the EF-S 60 may be equal in IQ to the EF 100L macro, or at least very close, and now that we have a crop body with IBIS it's that little bit easier to use for hand-held wildlife macros, especially in natural light. I do think that overall the 100L is better, but if you're on a tight budget, or if you just want to dip a toe in the deep water that is macro photography, the EF-S 60 could be a great choice.

Steve Balcombe wrote:

dwkdnvr wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

I see you've used Olympus before - it would definitely be worth checking out the OM-1 before you decide. More expensive though.

It really does seem that the R7 and OM-1 are the 2 bodies to look at if you're considering the areas where crop has advantages or at least where the downsides are mitigated - telephoto/wildlife and macro. The OM-1 is more expensive, but has the very good Oly 60mm macro available which evens out the pricing if you're pairing the R7 with either of the 100mm lenses.

I'm considering the R7 + RF 100-400 + a macro, but was considering the EF-S 60mm on an adapter. Probably not close to the performance of the 100's, but at $300-ish used it's an easier first step and it does seem to be one of the better regarded EF-S lenses.

I think the EF-S 60 may be equal in IQ to the EF 100L macro, or at least very close,

It depends. If you are talking about non macro uses then they may be close. If you talk about use at 1:1 up to about 1:5 magnification then that isn't true. The 100L is a lot better at that. Unfortunately all the test charts that people have done over the years are at small magnifications - and so all these tests are not indicative of the lens performance.

charlyw64 wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

dwkdnvr wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

I see you've used Olympus before - it would definitely be worth checking out the OM-1 before you decide. More expensive though.

It really does seem that the R7 and OM-1 are the 2 bodies to look at if you're considering the areas where crop has advantages or at least where the downsides are mitigated - telephoto/wildlife and macro. The OM-1 is more expensive, but has the very good Oly 60mm macro available which evens out the pricing if you're pairing the R7 with either of the 100mm lenses.

I'm considering the R7 + RF 100-400 + a macro, but was considering the EF-S 60mm on an adapter. Probably not close to the performance of the 100's, but at $300-ish used it's an easier first step and it does seem to be one of the better regarded EF-S lenses.

I think the EF-S 60 may be equal in IQ to the EF 100L macro, or at least very close,

It depends. If you are talking about non macro uses then they may be close. If you talk about use at 1:1 up to about 1:5 magnification then that isn't true. The 100L is a lot better at that. Unfortunately all the test charts that people have done over the years are at small magnifications - and so all these tests are not indicative of the lens performance.

No, I'm speaking from personal experience of both lenses.

Following up my own post. I decided to hedge my bets. Got the R7 and RF 100-400 (and kit lens), but decided to keep my Olympus E-M1 MkII and get the Oly 60mm for macro use. This is entirely due to deciding that having a 2nd body dedicated to macro was a better plan than having to swap a single body back and forth, and the Oly combo was the cheapest path to a proven macro rig.