Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] E-M5 mk III

Subject: Re: [OM] E-M5 mk III
From: Frank <wijsmuller@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 11:15:03 +0100
Hmm... I have the 30mm 3.5 and it supports in camera focus stacking.

Check the product description / product faq's of Oly's website to find
which lens is compatible with focus stacking.

For instance the 12-100mm is not compatible with the e-m1 mark I
<https://learnandsupport.getolympus.com/support/e-m1> (however it is with
the mark II, but the faq doesn't show this..). The 1.2 Pro's are not
compatible at all btw.


Oh and I like its bokeh, maybe due to the relatively simple optical design
(7 elements in 6 groups). The 60mm for instance has 13/10.



Op ma 18 nov. 2019 om 10:37 schreef Piers Hemy <piers@xxxxxxxx>:

> I am hesitant to add to anything Moose writes on macro (for which I am as
> always very grateful!) but there is one aspect of the m.Zuiko 60/2.8 which
> is worth adding. It provides for focus stacking in-camera on OM-D EM-1 (X,
> i and ii) and EM-5 (ii and I assume also iii). No need for PS.
>
> AFAIK neither the 30/3.5 nor the Panasonic lenses have this facility, so
> for use with the noted bodies, the 60/2.8 has a significant advantage.
>
>
> https://learnandsupport.getolympus.com/learn-center/photography-tips/macro/focus-stacking-bracketing-with-om-d
>
> Piers
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: olympus <olympus-bounces+piers.hemy=gmail.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
> Behalf Of Moose
> Sent: 18 November 2019 05:45
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [OM] E-M5 mk III
>
> 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/
>
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz