Olympus Best Lens for shooting Macro Shoots

I was wondering what you experienced Olympus uses would suggest as the very best lens to purchase for shooting Micro shots with my new E-5?

If you have any examples of your work, please post them. Thanks in advance. BB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buglinbilly

I was wondering what you experienced Olympus uses would suggest as the very best lens to purchase for shooting Micro shots with my new E-5?

If you have any examples of your work, please post them. Thanks in advance. BB

---

Well the 12-60mm does an excelent job plus you will have the advantage of fast AF. The 14-54mm served me well too and nothing sharper than the 50mm.
If I had only one to pick from I would get the 12-60mm. If nothing else but for the performance. It's a sweet ride.
I'll have to dig around for some examples since I don't shoot a lot of macros. But I will check.

Well I found one. This flower is actually about one inch across. You can see just how sharp it is. I would think about the 50mm but think that a fixed focal length would be to restrictive. The 14-54mm is a very good lens too. I think it would be my second choice.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k3...59/example.jpg

I don't have it, but the ZD 50mm macro is supposed to be superb. I muddle along with the OM 90mm macro which is similar, but manual.

I sure apprecaite your responces. I only have three lenses for my camera and two of the the three are the two mentoined aboove. I have the 12-60mm and the 50mm 1:2 Macro, that I got during the winter, but haven't used it yet of marco shots. The other lens I have is the 70-300.

Does anyone have the Olympus Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 Digital lens. If so what do you think of it, and about how much would a lens like that cost?

Again thanks for the replys. BB

I have the 50-200mm but very seldom use it for macro. It is a heavy lens but also very sharp and fast. I used it for a kids soccer game Saturday and I am amazed with it.
You might consider getting a tube. I had one at one time. They are very nice to use for macro but there is a learning curve to them and it takes some patience to use one.
You can get a 50-200mm on the used market for 500-600 dollars or so. It is a wonderful lens to own.
If you were to get a tube and the 50-200mm you would have a wonderful collection of glass to work with.
How you liking the E5? I have been reading they are in short supply right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buglinbilly

I sure apprecaite your responces. I only have three lenses for my camera and two of the the three are the two mentoined aboove. I have the 12-60mm and the 50mm 1:2 Macro, that I got during the winter, but haven't used it yet of marco shots. The other lens I have is the 70-300.

Does anyone have the Olympus Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 Digital lens. If so what do you think of it, and about how much would a lens like that cost?

Again thanks for the replys. BB

---

I don't have this lens - but I can help you out with price. It's on sale at B&H for $1,049 ($150 off). Here are the specifications and more info:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._5_ED_SWD.html

Liz

Also here is a link to the tube......
http://www.google.com/products/catal...d=0CEYQ8wIwAg#

Thanks for all the help. I am pretty new to photography and so much of this is all new to me. I think I could really use the low aperture setting on the 50-200mm lens.

Does anyone know how you make sure you get a good lens if you purchase a used lens?

Also the tube sound interesting. I read the reviews on the link given and some really hated it and thought it was worthless and some just raved about it. Why do you think there was such a difference in opinion?

Here are a few photos I took last summer with my 12-60mm lens and my E-3. I liked the E-3 so went ahead and got the E-5, which I also like, but really don't see that much difference between the two. It might just be I am too dumb to understand the real differences.

http://i430.photobucket.com/albums/q.../Flowers/4.jpg

http://i430.photobucket.com/albums/q.../Flowers/3.jpg

http://i430.photobucket.com/albums/q.../Flowers/2.jpg

http://i430.photobucket.com/albums/q.../Flowers/1.jpg

Thanks again for all the advice and information. I appreciate it.

Have a good one. BB

It just takes patience to use a tube. I could never auto focus with one and it only seemed to work at one focal length on the lens. The pictures I took with it were amazing but like I said you just had to have patience. Plus in the end I am more of a landscape, urban shooter and really ain't much into taking flower pictures.
But I have a great respect for macro shooters I just ain't good at it. Be sure and get you a sturdy tripod that will go low. If you get the 50-200mm you will need one.

Check this out..... Loupey is the best.
http://forums.photographyreview.com/...ad.php?t=21833

I shoot mostly macros. Most often I use the 50mm f/2. After that the 50mm and the ex25 extension tube get the most use. The 50mm f/2, 35mm and the 70-300 are the ONLY zuiko digital lenses that can shoot true macros. None of the other lenses even come close in terms of magnification.

I think this one was the 50mm and the ex25 tube.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3064/...c4dd9be5_o.jpg

For close-up work, or maybe better called "almost macro," the 12-60, 50 f/2 or the 50-200 are about equal. The 50mm is the sharpest and offers the highest magnification. The 12-60 is the most versatile. The 50-200 gives me plenty of wiggle room when I'm working with dangerous stuff like pit vipers. The 50-200 with the ex25 tube gives me a lot of working distance and also decent magnification. It also has the added benefit of a fast depth-of-field transition, so it is very easy to get creamy out-of-focus backgrounds.

In short, your lens choice depends on the situation. You can't go wrong with any ZD lens.

Here's one from the 50-200 with the ex25 extension tube.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3663/...5c9cdf4e_o.jpg