On 11/17/2019 12:42 PM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
May I ask what lenses to go with the E-m5 iii? I also recently have some
extra change itching in the pocket. I need a smaller system and preferably
a good macro lens.
Macro lens is a complicated thing for µ4/3. It would be easy to say, "Well, I had a Canon 60 mm macro that was great."
Or like me, to have taken many good shots with the excellent Tamron 90/2.8 on FF.
But here's the problem - working distance. Sure, the Oly or Panny 30 mm macros have the same FoV on a 4/3 sensor as a 60
mm lens on FF. BUT, they are still 30 mm lenses.
AND, like all four µ4/3 macro lenses with AF, they are internal focusing. The way that works is by shortening the FL
when focusing close.
They both have very short closest working distances. The spec closest focus doesn't look so bad in the specs, but
remember, that's from the focal plane. The way that plays out is:
Register Lens Sum Closest Working
Distance
Distance Length Focus mm in.
Panny 30 mm 19.25 63.5 82.75 105 22.25 7/8 "
Oly 30 mm 19.25 60 79.25 95 15.75 5/8 "
Panny 45 mm 19.25 62.5 81.75 150 68.25 2 11/16
"
Oly 60 mm 19.25 82 101.25 190 88.75 3 1/2 "
(That the actual closest distance for the 60/2.8 is ~ 3 3/8" confirms that the
math works.)
Close focusing distances of under an inch are fine, when I'm working on a copy stand, with ring light or Lieberkühn
reflector. For more normal use, hand held, with things that move, that may be spooked by something so large, so close,
they are useless.
Hence, I have the Oly 60/2.8. An optically excellent lens, with a really clever, and wildly overpriced, sliding lens
hood. The JJC LH-J49 hood is a good copy, and works well with a bit of judicious lubing with Teflon gel.
But, at least for me, it's still not a very useful field lens. Here's my usage:
2006 29
2007 232
2008 140
2009 64
2010 78
2011 10
And it seems I've not used it since. I'm sure I would have used it for serious macro, but I have the OM 20/2 and 38/2.8
marvels, which I use on the Sony A7, for their FF coverage.
What do I use for close focus, if not serious macro? I tried auto extension tubes. They did work pretty well, optically.
Mechanically, they were less ideal. I tend to shoot things as they appear and I notice them. So, I'll shoot a distant
bird one second and a close up of a bug on a flower the next, and things like that.
Putting the tubes on and taking them off, with no place to put pieces down, is physically awkward, and, of course,
invites stuff into the camera body. Also, they increase the number of electrical contacts 'tween lens and body.
With the inexpensive ones I used, with simple brass contacts, that meant occasional failures to focus, and the need to
wipe off all those contacts. Stack two, and the incidence of that problem multiplies.
The solution I've settled on, for several years, is achromatic close-up lenses. My working lenses are all Panny these
days, 7-14/4, 12-60/2.4-4 and 100-400/4-6.3. Yes, I know I'm weird, but I carry them on separate bodies, two around my
neck and one on my belt.
I also have a belt filter pouch, carrying a Nikon 5T C-U lens for the 12-60 and a Pentax T132 for the 100-400. The
Pentax is an elusive prey. The current model Sigma Achromatic Macro Lens AML 72-01 works optically pretty well, but is a
bit too powerful for the 400 mm end of the lens, and gets the lens a bit close to subject.
With Xume magnetic filter adapters from Manfrotto, I can pop them on and off in a few seconds. Sometimes, I palm one,
as I work different subjects. This is a tried and true technique for me. Does it get to 1:1? Nah. But it gets close
enough for what I need.
Now, as to lenses with useful close focus, both with and without a C-U lens, the Panny 12-60 is quite wonderful. It goes
to just past 1:2 - 35 mm eq. - on it's own, with excellent quality. Depending on what you are looking for, that might be
enough by itself.
The Oly 12-100 specs about the same, unless you look closely. The 12-60 focuses closest/highest mag. @ 60 mm. The 12-100
does so at 12 mm. This is a HUGE difference, in practice. Here are comparison shots with the two lenses. Yes, in theory,
I could get the same mag with both. In practice; note the shadows on the front of the 12-100 shots. If I got any closer,
the lens itself, sans hood, completely shadows the subjects. Also, with 3D subjects like these, the perspective is much
less appealing @ 12 mm. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/12-60%20vs%2012-100/12-60v100.htm>
The 12-100 is otherwise a wonderful lens, but has, for me, a fatal flaw.
Run On Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|