Macro Lense Question

[Justintoxicated]

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?

[drg]

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.

[Justintoxicated]

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.

[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

[xwingkiller]

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

[Greg McCary]

I agree the 14-54 would be a wise choice. I have it and love it.

[Justintoxicated]

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?

[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.

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.

[Greg McCary]

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.

[Justintoxicated]

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

[Greg McCary]

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.

[Justintoxicated]

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?

[Atomic2]

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.

[Justintoxicated]

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.

[Don Kondra]

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

Cheers, Don

[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.

[Atomic2]

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

[Justintoxicated]

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.

[Atomic2]

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

[Justintoxicated]

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?

[Atomic2]

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.

[Don Kondra]

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

[Don Kondra]

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

Works a lot better with the original file

Cheers, Don

[dumpy]

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:

[Sushigaijin]

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: