Macro Lens?

oldpostninja · Sep 6, 2008

My boyfriend is being such a sweetheart and offering to buy me a macro lens for my upcoming birthday. Unfortunately, he asks me which kind to get, and I can't seem to give him an answer.

I have an Olympus Evolt E500. I'm currently using three 1x, 2x, 4x macro filters on the default 45mm lens that came with the camera. I would like to take clear pictures of water drops, objects reflected through water drops, closeups of detail on flowers and other nature, etc. What would be a good lens to satisfy my needs but also be satisafactory to his wallet? Thank you for your help.

Dubious Drewski · Sep 6, 2008

Well, the filters are definatley the cheapest way to go. They do funny things to your picture, but they do work. For good quality macro, you'll need an actual macro lens (50mm - 100mm works great for macro work), but they can cost about $400 to $800 for a new one.

Bifurcator · Sep 6, 2008

If the filters are achromatic/aspherical they won't do anything "funny" to your images. If they aren't AC there will be some color fringing in high contrast areas and that's it.

But anyway, yeah around 100mm or so seems to be the favorite of many of the guys here that shoot macro.

Johnboy2978 · Sep 6, 2008

Sigma makes a nice macro lens. I have the sigma ex 70mm macro and it runs around $430. It is a true 1:1 and I think they also have a 105mm version as well. Might check it out.

Joves · Sep 6, 2008

The 100mm area is a nice length for macros. As far as Olympus I cant tell you much on them. But the Sigma sounds nice.

usayit · Sep 6, 2008

On the E500, the 100mm focal length might be too long.

tomhooper · Sep 6, 2008

I agree, go with the 100mm or there about.

epp_b · Sep 6, 2008

Macro filters work, but they only go so far and they have horrible abberations

On the E500, the 100mm focal length might be too long.

Indeed. That's nearly 200mm on a 35mm frame.

The longest Olympus macro I see is 50mm, which is about 65mm on Nikon APS-C. That's still a bit short for Macro, so adding Olympus' extension tube would probably give you a good macro length.

JohnnyL · Sep 6, 2008

What's the difference between a macro and a zoom lens? Is there a difference with a 18-70 and a 70mm macro? I know the 70mm macro would product sharper images as it is a prime lens but what are the other differences? Are there any?

Oldpostninja , I haven't got a macro lens so I can't help you but incase you didn't know ,for water droplets , a flash will help you freeze it there in the picture.

epp_b · Sep 7, 2008

What's the difference between a macro and a zoom lens? Is there a difference with a 18-70 and a 70mm macro? I know the 70mm macro would product sharper images as it is a prime lens but what are the other differences? Are there any?

Closer focusing distances and high reproduction ratio.

GeneralBenson · Sep 7, 2008

So how well do macro lenses function as regular lenses? Or do they only do macro? Like the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO. Does this work as a regular zoom lens as well; and it only hase a Mag factor of 1:4, which doesn't seem like much too me, if 1:1 is what macro generally means.

PhilGarber · Sep 7, 2008

This one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/163662-REG/Sigma_509101_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_DG_Macro.html

It's $149.00 USD..probably cheapest out there, takes great waterdroplet photographs!

Dubious Drewski · Sep 7, 2008

GeneralBenson said:
So how well do macro lenses function as regular lenses? Or do they only do macro?

They work very well as regular lenses, but only for close-to-medium distances. For instance, the Pentax 100mm 2.8 works very well as a portrait lens, but I'd never use it for landscape photography; it just can't focus out that far.

Bifurcator · Sep 8, 2008

epp_b said:
Macro filters work, but they only go so far and they have horrible abberations

Only the cheep crappy ones have aberrations. The $10 ones. The $20 ones have none at all and won't introduce any aberrations. It just depends on how cheep you feel when you go shopping for one.

Bifurcator · Sep 8, 2008

JohnnyL said:
What's the difference between a macro and a zoom lens? Is there a difference with a 18-70 and a 70mm macro? I know the 70mm macro would product sharper images as it is a prime lens but what are the other differences? Are there any?

Oldpostninja , I haven't got a macro lens so I can't help you but incase you didn't know ,for water droplets , a flash will help you freeze it there in the picture.

Macro just means that it focuses close. You can have a zoom macro or a prime macro. The typical "zoom" lens nearest focus distance is about 1 meter where the nearest for a macro zoom may be as little as 1 centimeter.

There are what I see people call "real macro" and umm "not real macro" lenses. I assume the difference is that the "real" ones have an additional element grouping for close focus distances whereas the "not real" ones are designed to move a single focus element group into place for near focusing. That is just an assumption though I haven't looked it up.