Macro?

[jeffharris]

Another penalty is that internal focus lenses shorten their focal length as they focus closer, thus making the working distance worse than expected. My rather nice Nikon 105mm macro lens went to 79mm focal length at closest focus. Older/simpler style focus lenses do not change their focal length so retain a better working distance at 1:1.

Which Nikon 105mm macro do you have?

I'm considering one of the older 105mm f2.8 AI-s models. Or maybe one of the newer manual focus f2.8, but it's way more expensive and I tapped myself out in the lens department. :-( The reviews I've read have all been pretty stellar.

I have a couple of lenses of similar vintage (late 80s) and like the feel of them. G-series lenses are kind of pointless. And I'm not thrilled with the focus of my 60mm f2.8 AF-D macro.

 

[fastprime]

I have this lens and found it easier to use for macro in MF. I found the AF hunted around quite a bit and it was frustrating to use. Now I didn't use the direct focus on the G3 LCD so I can't comment on that. I was photographing wild flowers and there was a bit of wind so some movement of the subject. It does have a limit focus switch. On AF limit the lens won't go into macro mode so it's faster for normal subject focusing. In full AF it covers the entire focal range. That's the same as the Nikon AF micro's as well. I always thought it would be better to implement the opposite way, ie have a dedicated macro limit so the AF won't get distracted by objects behind the subject and the focus search would be within the macro range. I also found it sometimes refuses to go into macro mode even when you hover the lens right over the subject. I had to put my hand in front of the lens to get it to focus in-close -kind of a reset, then it would work in macro again.

More recently I've started experimenting with a couple of legacy macros, the 55mm micro nikkor and the 105mm Canon FD using extension tubes. These work really great with the MFT sensors and the LCD MF Assist is really helpful for fine focusing. I suggest anyone looking to use MFT cameras for macro acquire similar legacy glass and tubes on the cheap instead of splurging on modern AF macro lenses which in most cases you will use in MF mode anyway -at least for macro work.

 

[Adrian Harris]

Hi Robert

I use the 45-200 with a Canon 250D achromatic +4 diopter 52mm lens screwed on the front. Zoomed up to about 120mm the combination is taggering, but from about 130mm-200mm the Panasonic lens is a little soft.

The + 4 gives a max working distance of up 1/4 metre, the 500D +2 gives 1/2 metre.

DON'T even consider any of the cheap non achromatic screw on adapters, they are appallingly bad.

PS. I meant to say, the Canon Achromatics are about £50, the optical quality is stunning.

--
Adrian

http://www.t1000.co.uk/photography/gallery1/
http://www.t1000.co.uk/photography.htm

 

[Guy Parsons]

Which Nikon 105mm macro do you have?

Sold it some years back but was the AF-D lens. I suspect the Ai-S lens was the same lens assembly? It was a Kiron lens rebadged by Nikon or a design bought by Nikon, a friend had the original Kiron lens, was identical.

But it was big and heavy and awkward even when on my old Nikon N-8008s (F801s). For lightness I bought the ultra cheapie and lightweight Cosina 100mm and for the number of times I needed 100mm it was OK at f/11 or whatever I was using.

An aside is that with that lens and 35mm film I could see the resolution loss when going from f/5.6 to f/8, only very slight but you cannot stop physics from interfering with photography.

I'm considering one of the older 105mm f2.8 AI-s models. Or maybe one of the newer manual focus f2.8, but it's way more expensive and I tapped myself out in the lens department. :-( The reviews I've read have all been pretty stellar.

I have a couple of lenses of similar vintage (late 80s) and like the feel of them. G-series lenses are kind of pointless. And I'm not thrilled with the focus of my 60mm f2.8 AF-D macro.

I have oceans of macro fun at great working distance with the Raynox 250 on the front of the late model 4/3 40-150mm plus MMF-2 on my E-PL1. That combination gives a bit better than 1:1 as it captures 15mm side to side in frame. I suspect the M4/3 40-150mm would behave much the same. The 4/3 lens vignettes a little around 70mm but is fine the rest of the zoom range for various macro ratios.

Again the internal (infernal) lens focus issues interfere and usually the results are better with the host lens left focused on infinity to get the longest host lens focal length.

Regards........... Guy

 

[Mike Ronesia]

My 45macro seems to work fine in auto focus for most things. It can be an issue with hand held shots as the slightest moment changes things. I can't use the touch screen for most of my macro work but if I preposition my focus point it seems to lock and fire fairly fast if the background area is close. If it is a nat on a blade of grass with the background a ways off then hunting can become a problem and then I like to use manual assist mode.

Ignore the EXIF, It happened in a batch save some how.





--
It's easier to ask for forgiveness then to ask for permission.

 

[Robert Kinsell]

Thanks for all the info, everyone ... lots to think about, now.

Robert Kinsell
http://www.robertkinsellartist.com

 

[Andy Crowe]

So it does not matter what sensor size, the 100mm lens working distance is what is really needed to keep nervous insect subjects calm.

Shouldn't the Panasonic 45mm f2.8 or the Olympus 50mm f2 have roughly the same working distance as a 100mm lens on FF?

No, a 100mm lens always has the same working distance attempting 1:1 macro no matter what the sensor size is. The 45mm and 50mm have a shorter working distance. Just the frame width captured varies with different sensor sizes when at 1:1.

But will a 2x crop sensor not give the same sized subject at 1:2 than a full frame camera at 1:1, thus increasing the working distance?

Here's a quote from the 4/3 50mm macro review:

"This enables a minimum focus distance of 0.2m, giving a 1:2 (0.5x) maximum magnification, which translates to an image area similar to that obtained using a 1:1 macro lens on the 35mm full-frame format."

 

[Guy Parsons]

But will a 2x crop sensor not give the same sized subject at 1:2 than a full frame camera at 1:1, thus increasing the working distance?

Yes, but real life dictates that when someone is down in the 1:1 range they often need something even better, so M4/3 does give a pseudo 2:1 by virtue of the sensor size and that might just enable a better image of that little ant or whatever. The working distance will be the same.

If chasing butterflies then of course we focus further back in maybe the 1:10 to 1:4 range maybe and things do change a bit.

The fact is that nervous little insects like the lens to be far away, so a 100mm lens on whatever size sensor seems to be the minimum focal length to be useful.

Regards........... Guy

 

[Andy Crowe]

But will a 2x crop sensor not give the same sized subject at 1:2 than a full frame camera at 1:1, thus increasing the working distance?

Yes, but real life dictates that when someone is down in the 1:1 range they often need something even better, so M4/3 does give a pseudo 2:1 by virtue of the sensor size and that might just enable a better image of that little ant or whatever. The working distance will be the same.

...

The fact is that nervous little insects like the lens to be far away, so a 100mm lens on whatever size sensor seems to be the minimum focal length to be useful.

But as you say, M4/3 will be pseudo 2:1, so if a 100mm 1:1 lens on FF is good enough then a 50mm 1:2 lens should be good enough on M4/3 because they'll give you similar results. If you need a 100mm on M4/3 then you'd surely need a 200mm on FF to achieve the same?

 

[Andy Crowe]

Thanks for the info, shame as it sounds like something that would be relatively easy to fix in the firmware (say a macro scene mode that limits the autofocus to close focus)

I have this lens and found it easier to use for macro in MF. I found the AF hunted around quite a bit and it was frustrating to use. Now I didn't use the direct focus on the G3 LCD so I can't comment on that. I was photographing wild flowers and there was a bit of wind so some movement of the subject. It does have a limit focus switch. On AF limit the lens won't go into macro mode so it's faster for normal subject focusing. In full AF it covers the entire focal range. That's the same as the Nikon AF micro's as well. I always thought it would be better to implement the opposite way, ie have a dedicated macro limit so the AF won't get distracted by objects behind the subject and the focus search would be within the macro range. I also found it sometimes refuses to go into macro mode even when you hover the lens right over the subject. I had to put my hand in front of the lens to get it to focus in-close -kind of a reset, then it would work in macro again.

 

[Guy Parsons]

But as you say, M4/3 will be pseudo 2:1, so if a 100mm 1:1 lens on FF is good enough then a 50mm 1:2 lens should be good enough on M4/3 because they'll give you similar results. If you need a 100mm on M4/3 then you'd surely need a 200mm on FF to achieve the same?

The longer the better but of course the DOF may be a bit shallow. I seem to end up using my 40-150mm lens with a Raynox 250 on the front for a bit better than 1:1 at rather large working distance.

If the air is cold then many insects are in slumberland and can be approached with say a 50mm lens, but for general purpose 100mm seems to work better on 35mm film or M4/3.

Some notes from my Macro page in the E-PL1 area, re using the 14-150mm lens for macro. The Raynox 250 on the 14-150mm is a disaster but the alternative is.....

..............quote.......................

Without the added lens [ was talking about the Raynox in the previous words ] the 14-150mm lens manages 70mm frame width captured when set at 150mm and with a working distance of about 280mm. Same close-up ability as the Mk2 14-42mm kit lens.

Add the Nikon 4T [ 'tis +2.9 dioptre double element at 52mm thread ] and now at 150mm focal length and closest focus the frame width captured is 40mm and working distance about 145mm, move the lens focus to "infinity" and the same 40mm frame width is captured but now the working distance increases to about 350mm. The 40mm captured represents about 1:2.3 macro ratio.

.............unquote..........................

So there are few useful alternatives and if only using macro in a casual way then there's little sense in buying a dedicated macro lens. The add-on dioptres work so well on tele zooms if double or triple element like the Nikon and Raynox respectively.

Regards.......... Guy