Macro

[fotobram]

I own an Olympus ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 50mm 1:2.0 lens.



One of the few Oly fixed focal lenght lenses and also a rather bright one.
The brightness, the sharpness and the compactness were the reasons for buying.
It comes in handy in some situations, but I do not use it often enough really.

Essentially it is a macro lens, but I do not have a lot of macro inspiration. :-\

Is anybody shooting macros without flowers, insects or waterdrops

Please , make me think :-X

[fotobram]

I have linked this post from here http://www.photocamel.com/index.php/topic,15675.0.html
Since the question is not strictly a 4/3 subject.

One remark though:
I was thinking of buying the Oly ring flash. After careful reading I was amazed to notice that both ring flash and twin flash do not fit the 2 Oly macro lenses. You need a 120 Euro adapter ring to make that work.
Very strange. They do fit the 14-54 and 50-200, but these are no macro lenses >
Is this another inconsequence in the Oly long term strategy

[Jonathanp]

This lens almost never comes off my camera. I find it sharper then the 14-54 and other then not having a focus limiter it has yet to let me down. Post some photos when you get some time.
-J

[Paul Shields]

I like the 50mm - it does work very well as a macro, and really comes into it's own when used with the EX-25. It's one failing is awfully slow AF, but not such a problem when taking macros. Shame about the need for an adaptor for ringflash though....

Some examples:

50mm + EX-25




and a couple of silly ones just with the 50mm

[Mr. Pickles]

Why does it come into its own adding the EX-25? Isn't it really good without it? How do you think it compares with the 35mm f/3.5 macro?

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

Why does it come into its own adding the EX-25? Isn't it really good without it? How do you think it compares with the 35mm f/3.5 macro?

Well with the EX-25 it becomes a true 1:1 macro. It's fine without it, but is more of a 'close-up' lens in that mode in my opinion (1:2). It really does hunt a lot on the E-1 though. I suspect that's due to the lens rather than the body, though I'd love to try it out on the E-400 as there is supposed to be much improved AF. I've no experience of the 35mm, though have read some good things about it. At half the cost it would seem to be a good deal for macro, so long as you don't need the wider aperture. The 50mm does make an excellent portrait lens at f/2.0 though - the 100mm equiv. focal lenth is nice for that (just make sure that the light is good or the hunting will drive you nuts!).

[Mr. Pickles]

Ah. Wondering because at BHPhoto, the 50mm says this:
Magnification 1:2 (1:1 35mm equivalent)

and the 35mm says this:
Magnification 1.0x (2.0x equivalent in 35mm)

So based on what you are saying, they are true macro's if used on a 35mm body, which they can't be, since they is a 4/3 format lens. Deceptive marketing it seems, but I could be wrong.

So the EX-25 only works with the 50mm f/2 correct?

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

So the EX-25 only works with the 50mm f/2 correct?

No, it can be used on a number of lenses. It's really nice on the 50-200mm. Lets you get some great close-ups from a reasonable distance away.

[Mr. Pickles]

Ah, what I really meant was it only works with the 50mm f/2 in AF mode. All the other lenses (only above 50mm it seems, like the 50-200) in the 4/3 line will only be MF with this, correct?

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

Ah, what I really meant was it only works with the 50mm f/2 in AF mode. All the other lenses (only above 50mm it seems, like the 50-200) in the 4/3 line will only be MF with this, correct?

You know, I've never tried it in AF mode on the 50-200mm. The problem is the area of focus is so narrow with the EX-25 that AF is almost pointless. It's much easier to just rotate the zoom until the image snaps into focus. You are right though, AF is not possible with some of the lenses when using the EX-25.

[Mr. Pickles]

So, would you say it would be better (wiser, funner, etc) to use the EX-25 with a lowly 40-150, or is it better to use a 35mm f/3.5

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

So, would you say it would be better (wiser, funner, etc) to use the EX-25 with a lowly 40-150, or is it better to use a 35mm f/3.5

Pass. I've not had the chance to use either of those lenses. The 35mm seems to be the best value if interested in macro - you get the 1:1, you'll probably be stopping down anyway so the max aperture's not such a problem, and it's a great price compared to the 50mm. If you're interested in macros with other lenses then I guess the EX-25 makes more sense as you can utilise it elsewhere (as I say, it's excellent on the 50-200mm).

[Mr. Pickles]

Yeah, it is a wishy washy deal.

With the 40-150 and a EX-25, you start with a good lens (not great) and add another level of glass in the mix. So image quality will suffer a tiny bit more. But, you have the zoomable aspect. You can get close or far depending on conditions (like BEES).

With the 35mm macro, its biggest problem is the slow to AF if one used that for macro work. It is also kind of plasticy, but so is the 40-150. It biggest good point is the price and it is suppose to be very sharp.

If I had a 50-200, I'd get the EX-25. But maybe I'll go the 35mm route and see what it is like.

[fotobram]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

With the 40-150 and a EX-25, you start with a good lens (not great) and add another level of glass in the mix. So image quality will suffer a tiny bit more.

No glass in the EX-25
It is just a ring.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

Yeah, it is a wishy washy deal.

With the 40-150 and a EX-25, you start with a good lens (not great) and add another level of glass in the mix. So image quality will suffer a tiny bit more. But, you have the zoomable aspect. You can get close or far depending on conditions (like BEES).

Well, the EX-25 is just a tube so no problem wih adding another level of glass . At least it's one of the cheaper bits of Oly armour, so that should soften the blow somewhat.

With the 35mm macro, its biggest problem is the slow to AF if one used that for macro work. It is also kind of plasticy, but so is the 40-150. It biggest good point is the price and it is suppose to be very sharp.

The 50mm is also pretty slow (a typical symptom of macro lenses I guess). If you're shooting small things that move around a lot then that would be a problem. My way around it is to focus on a particular point (e.g. when taking bee shots) and wait patiently. I think you always need a good dose of patience when doing that type of macro .

If I had a 50-200, I'd get the EX-25. But maybe I'll go the 35mm route and see what it is like.

Indeed the 50-200 + EX-25 is a great combination. Some more gratuitous shots of that combo (including a bee ):







and just to be topical, here's one I took today with the 50-200mm + EC-14 (which does contain some glass but doesn't seem to affect the image quality in my opinion ).

[Mr. Pickles]

I knew it didn't have glass in it. Why the heck did I type that? Good thing this year is almost over.

[Paul Shields]

So have you got round to picking up the EX-25 then? It's probably the cheapest thing you can mount on your E-1 so no excuses .

[fotobram]

Sorry for my slow response to these great photos.
Fact is, I sold all my gear and switched to Nikon. That kept my interest away from FT for a while

[Paul Shields]

Hey, we wont hold that against you . How has moving to Nikon changed your photography? I suspect there are some obvious improvements around things like AF. Are you finding that you're getting better hit rates, better prints? Anything you miss from the Olympus world?

[LJBD]

[img width=1000 height=700]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/38/122621704_5ee6d4fa57_b.jpg[/img]