Olympus Cameras and Four Thirds System Digital SLRs Forum

Olympus Cameras Forum Discuss Olympus film and digital cameras as well as Panasonic and Leica Four Thirds System digital SLRs - forum moderator is Greg McCary.
Olympus E-System Digital SLR Reviews >>
Panasonic Four Thirds Digital SLR Reviews >>
Leica Four Thirds Digital SLR Reviews >>
Official Four Thirds Web Page >>
Olympus OM-System 35mm SLR reviews >>
Olympus Cameras History Page >>
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    142

    Macro Lense Question

    I plan to do alot of macro photography:

    small fish in fishtanks,
    computer parts
    insects
    flowers

    What would be my best bet for a lense under $1000?

  2. #2
    drg
    drg is offline
    la recherche de trolls drg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Route 66
    Posts
    3,404

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    Are you shooting 4/3'rds or film? Or . . .

    Think in terms of 105mm or 150mm effective length. A macro/ring flash or light will be very helpful. The best tripod you can fit into the budget is also a must. If you camera supports a remote or wireless release, that is also a good tool to use.

    These focal lengths will get you far enough away that the camera isn't on top of your subjects. If you are shooting nervous or very difficult to capture insects, see Loupey's posts in the Nature and Wildlife forum.

    Some photographer's like using extension tubes (come in sets) to augment a lens or preventing having to buy a special macro, even though they can be used for 'normal' work as well.

    The camera you are using will point in different dirctions .

    Sigma's 105mm and 150mm in the Olympus mount are some of the best fixed focal length macro's available. Both will cost much less than a $1000 dollars.
    CDPrice 'drg'
    Biography and Contributor's Page


    Please do not edit and repost any of my photographs.






  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    142

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    Sorry the camera is an e520, The kit lense seems to have alot of problems focusing on fish in my aquarium. The shutter stays open too long too. I'm thinking something with a larger/lower aperature. Should I go with a fixed focus or a zoon or what?

    I'm thinking the 150 will zoom a bit too far. I'd digging the 50mm (thinking thats about what I would need as its best to photograph close to the fishtanks). However, my friend has a canon with a 50mm lense with an F1.2. Olympus only has one for 2.0? Seems like a pretty big difference. I know on olympus its like buying a 100mm f/4 not sure what that translates to in reg digi cams...Guess it would be pretty close to 1.2-1.4ish?


    Anyways what about getting the 50mm and one of these? http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-EX-25m..._bxgy_e_text_b

    The sigma 105 is ALOT cheaper and would save me some cash, but how well are the lenses sealed? I might be taking this to the desert.
    Last edited by Justintoxicated; 07-14-2008 at 09:48 PM.

  4. #4
    Member Atomic2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Chicago Il
    Posts
    331

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    the 14-54 is very good for macro work, and is a great step up from your kit lens, AND is weather sealed!
    pretty cheap now too,
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...o_Digital.html

    the 50mm 2.0 is also a good choice if you really need that speed.
    also the 30mm 1.4 may be an option

    my 2cents is to go with the 14-54, i think it will give you the results you want, and worst case scenario, its not fast enough for what you're doing, you can still keep it since its MUCH better than the kit 14-42
    E-3, E-510
    12-60 2.8-4.0
    40-150 3.5-4.5
    Sigma 30 1.4
    Zenit 58 F2 [with M42 adapter]
    Metz 48

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    mesa, az, usa
    Posts
    168

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    here's a place where you can go through examples of photos taken by each lens:

    oly 50mm:
    http://www.pbase.com/cameras/olympus...gital_ed_macro
    oly 35mm:
    http://www.pbase.com/cameras/olympus/zuiko_35_35_macro
    sigma 105mm:
    http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/105_28_ex_dg_macro

  6. #6
    Senior Shooter Greg McCary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Rome Ga.
    Posts
    10,550

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    I agree the 14-54 would be a wise choice. I have it and love it.
    I am like Barney Fife, I have a gun but Andy makes me keep the bullet in my pocket..

    Sony a99/a7R

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    142

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Atomic2
    the 14-54 is very good for macro work, and is a great step up from your kit lens, AND is weather sealed!
    pretty cheap now too,
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...o_Digital.html

    the 50mm 2.0 is also a good choice if you really need that speed.
    also the 30mm 1.4 may be an option

    my 2cents is to go with the 14-54, i think it will give you the results you want, and worst case scenario, its not fast enough for what you're doing, you can still keep it since its MUCH better than the kit 14-42
    problem is if I get this one it will replace my kit lense right? Wouldn't it be wiser to buy a lense that isn't replacing somethign I already have?

    I don't honestly know what to do is why I am asking. There seems to be alot more "macro" shots with the sigma than the 50mm olympus. They both look damn good, the sigma seems to do more macro in general but the 50mm seems to take slightly better pictures (I love the narrow depth of field shots with it).

    So which will be a my best second lense? 14-54 50mm aoly or 105 sigma?

  8. #8
    Senior Shooter Greg McCary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Rome Ga.
    Posts
    10,550

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    But with the 50mm you are limited to 50mm. To me that would be frustrating With the 14-54 you have 50mm already there. The 14-54 is a much better lens than the kit. It would be the first upgrade I would suggest. If I remember with the kit the minimum focus distance was quite a bit more than the 14-54mm. I think the 14-54mm is right around 4inches. I am not sure but maybe check the distance on the kit.

    I went back to the Olympus site. The kit minimum focus distance is 1.3 feet and the 14-54 is 8.67 inches. Almost half.
    I am like Barney Fife, I have a gun but Andy makes me keep the bullet in my pocket..

    Sony a99/a7R

  9. #9
    Senior Shooter Greg McCary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Rome Ga.
    Posts
    10,550

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    I cropped about half the image away but this was with the 14-54mm. I don't remember how much I cropped the second one.



    I am like Barney Fife, I have a gun but Andy makes me keep the bullet in my pocket..

    Sony a99/a7R

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    142

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg McCary
    But with the 50mm you are limited to 50mm. To me that would be frustrating With the 14-54 you have 50mm already there. The 14-54 is a much better lens than the kit. It would be the first upgrade I would suggest. If I remember with the kit the minimum focus distance was quite a bit more than the 14-54mm. I think the 14-54mm is right around 4inches. I am not sure but maybe check the distance on the kit.
    Right but at 54mm it has a larger F too, since when I zoom the kit lense in to 42mm the F is 5.6 and I'm not getting enough light. I already have 64 watts of compact flourescent above the tank too. I was hoping to buy a lense that can do something different than my kit lense, which is why I'm skeptical to replace it outright and still not be able to take great macros.

    Righ now the sigma is really tempting me the 105mm I thinkt he 150mm might be too much for fish tank shots, in fact teh 50mm might be my best bet but I'm not really sure. its best to get right up to the glass and I'm afraid I may have to move back with the sigma. I'll eventualy pickup the 14-54 for sure anyways but it wont be anytime soon cause I need to save up. However not being able to take very good macros is killing me!

    Like I said I can do just as well if not better with my digital elph

  11. #11
    Senior Shooter Greg McCary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Rome Ga.
    Posts
    10,550

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    The EX25 extention tube might be the answer then. I used one for awhile and found it to work great but AF wasn't an option. You had to manual focus and there was certainly a learning curve with it. You might PM Almo. He takes stunning fish pictures. Check his blog. See what he recommends. He is also up on all brands of lenses. He is one smart and friendly guy and would put you on the right path.
    I am like Barney Fife, I have a gun but Andy makes me keep the bullet in my pocket..

    Sony a99/a7R

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    142

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    I did send a msg to almo, he suggested spending money on lighting rather than lenses but I think I really need both...I'll wait and see if he recommends the sigma or olympy glass I suppose.
    Acording to Olympuses site it says the auto focus will work with the extension tube and 50mm so long as I buy that particular model. With the extension tube, I'm not sure how it would compare to the sigma 105?

  13. #13
    Member Atomic2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Chicago Il
    Posts
    331

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Justintoxicated
    problem is if I get this one it will replace my kit lense right? Wouldn't it be wiser to buy a lense that isn't replacing somethign I already have?
    thats silly. according to this logic, it would seem you would rather buy a lens that does only one thing well, and switch back and forth between THAT lens and a crappy lens.

    if you get the 14-54, you will be able to take great macro shots, AND have a great general purpose lens, and then ebay off or craigslist off the 14-42. or keep it because its very portable, but im going to sell mine.


    even if you didnt want to take macro photos, the 14-54 or the 12-60 are the next step up from the 14-42. a very recommended step up if you ask me, i felt very limited with the kit lens, the 42mm just wasnt enough range for me, and i always ended up using my 40-150 instead. now with those extra mm i have with my 12-60, i almost never need my tele.
    E-3, E-510
    12-60 2.8-4.0
    40-150 3.5-4.5
    Sigma 30 1.4
    Zenit 58 F2 [with M42 adapter]
    Metz 48

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    142

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    Well I certainly can't afford the 12-60 right now :P Planning to get the 14-54 soon, but wanted something to take macros even sooner. I have always wanted a camera that is excelent at macros and figured this is my chance to finaly have a specialized lense for them.

  15. #15
    Member Don Kondra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    353

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    Just to complicate matters even more, the 70-300 makes a great macro lens too

    Cheers, Don
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Macro Lense Question-macroflowers.jpg  

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    mesa, az, usa
    Posts
    168

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    if he thinks that lighting is the most important...you might ask almo about getting the oly 35mm macro plus some extra lighting. that lens is just such a great price for what you get.

  17. #17
    Member Atomic2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Chicago Il
    Posts
    331

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    this is what i got with a 12-60, and i think the 14-54 will be just as good at macro, even better because it has an even closer focusing distance. also i wasnt as close as i could be when i took this, i could have been way closer


    E-3, E-510
    12-60 2.8-4.0
    40-150 3.5-4.5
    Sigma 30 1.4
    Zenit 58 F2 [with M42 adapter]
    Metz 48

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    142

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    Quote Originally Posted by xwingkiller
    if he thinks that lighting is the most important...you might ask almo about getting the oly 35mm macro plus some extra lighting. that lens is just such a great price for what you get.
    I dont think 35mm will get me close enough to the fish in the tank. 42mm isn't really quite close enough but acceptable. I'm about to buy the 50mm prime! But I'm so confused right now to the point where I think I might just keep the kit lense... And give up on macros all together. I have been told by a number of people to get the prime lense. I would buy the 14-54 later as general purpose lense and use the 50 for macros and portraits. I just don't see how anything can compare to the 50mm lense in terms of ability for macro. 8 inches is great but is that while zoomed in or out? Im going to guess out(?), if it even matters.

    I just dont see the 14-54 being great as my macro lense, looks like it would be ok for flowers and decent for portraits and general purpose, just not sure it is excelent as a macro lense...

    the 50mm and 14-54 are both about the same price, but if I sleep on it I wont get them in time. But if I rush I might regret my decision.
    Last edited by Justintoxicated; 07-15-2008 at 11:19 PM.

  19. #19
    Member Atomic2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Chicago Il
    Posts
    331

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Justintoxicated
    I dont think 35mm will get me close enough to the fish in the tank. 42mm isn't really quite close enough but acceptable. I'm about to buy the 50mm prime! But I'm so confused right now to the point where I think I might just keep the kit lense... And give up on macros all together. I have been told by a number of people to get the prime lense. I would buy the 14-54 later as general purpose lense and use the 50 for macros and portraits. I just don't see how anything can compare to the 50mm lense in terms of ability for macro. 8 inches is great but is that while zoomed in or out? Im going to guess out(?), if it even matters.

    I just dont see the 14-54 being great as my macro lense, looks like it would be ok for flowers and decent for portraits and general purpose, just not sure it is excelent as a macro lense...

    the 50mm and 14-54 are both about the same price, but if I sleep on it I wont get them in time. But if I rush I might regret my decision.

    the distance isnt measure from the end of the lens, but from the camera [i think] because i noticed i could get the end of my lens alot closer when it was zoomed in.
    for instance, if you set up your camera on a tripod, and move it as close to the subject as possible when the lens is zoomed out, you would be able to zoom all the way in and the object would still be in focus
    E-3, E-510
    12-60 2.8-4.0
    40-150 3.5-4.5
    Sigma 30 1.4
    Zenit 58 F2 [with M42 adapter]
    Metz 48

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    142

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    Heres an example I attempted tonight, this is slightly lower light than other tanks.

    This picture was cropped to 2048x1536
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/28650323@N07/2673166259/

    Looks like I have a hot pixel above the shrimp, it was there in several pictures.

    Does anyone end up keeping both the 50mm Prime and 14-54? Isn't there a place for both in my collection? I just got my Lense filters for the 14-42 so it would be nice to get some use out of them. In the meantime the Prime would really show me what the camera is capable of? I understand it will suck to not have a zoom but the 14-54 or possibly 12-60 are next on my list. Or the older version of the 40-150 or 200 if I can find one for a good price. It would be nice to be able to photograph something like the above image on iso 200. Is that too much to ask of my camera?
    Last edited by Justintoxicated; 07-16-2008 at 02:52 AM.

  21. #21
    Member Atomic2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Chicago Il
    Posts
    331

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    I think I'll be selling my older 40-150 3.5-4.5
    I only bought it a couple months back, let me know if you're interested.
    E-3, E-510
    12-60 2.8-4.0
    40-150 3.5-4.5
    Sigma 30 1.4
    Zenit 58 F2 [with M42 adapter]
    Metz 48

  22. #22
    Member Don Kondra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    353

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    Just some quick thoughts, gotta get to work

    With the prime, you can't zoom, you move the camera closer to get closer.

    So the 14-54 would give you more options. The prime will be slightly crisper for picture quality.

    This is a quick edit in FastStone Image Viewer... It's a free download.

    If money is an issue, go for the 14-54, it already covers 50mm...

    Cheers, Don
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  23. #23
    Member Don Kondra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    353

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    Forgot to mention, you can crop that image more.....

    Works a lot better with the original file

    Cheers, Don
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Macro Lense Question-2673166259_e48fcfc5b6.jpg  

  24. #24
    Color me obvious dumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    CNY
    Posts
    257

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    I would start off by buying the ex-25 extension tube http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...sion_Tube.html
    and test it out with the kit lenses. It will decrease the minimum focus distance.

    You may like it a lot and want to stick with that configuration, you may like it, but still want to upgrade to the 14-54 or you may hate it. Worst case scenario you are out $120 and have an item that can easily be sold.

    FWIW I have the 35mm prime and love it, but I am not shooting aquariums so it's really an apples to oranges comparison. However for $200 its a great lens and is very versatile, not real fast, but for $200 what can you expect (with 4/3 lenses at least)

    Both of these were taken with that lens:


    Please ask before editing my photos, I'll say yes



    I like to take the pictures...

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,094

    Re: Macro Lense Question

    I have the 14-54 and the 50 prime, both great lenses. The 14-54 is a perfect walkabout lens, and it's close-up ability is good - but nowhere near as good as the macro. Image quality is amazing with either. Nothing wrong with owning both, they are two different lenses for two different purposes.

    the siggy 105 f/2.8 is probably a better bugging choice, I'm looking at that lens as a SECOND macro prime - so if you get it, post some photos so I can see how it does F/2.8 is plenty of aperture, so you will be able to get the depth of field very small.


    The 14-54 is already represented in this thread, so I'll give you just ONE close-up shot with it.




    50 f/2 prime:




    Erik Williams

    Olympus E3, E510
    12-60 SWD, 50-200 SWD, 50 f/2 macro, EX25, FL36's and an FL50r.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •