4/3 macro lens ?

[AnthonyB]

Im looking to pick up a good 4/3 macro lens for shooting small insects/flowers ect, looking for something with a really short focal length so i don't have to crop a huge amount and loose any detail
it is for my Olympus evolt 410, i cant seem to find any 4/3 and id rather not get an adapter if possible because there is about 600 different ones and i have no idea which one i should get lol
im kind of a noob to the whole lens deal, i just know how to use them lol,

and if anyone knows some good reading on differences in lenses let me know :thumbup:

right now this is about as good as i can get with the 14-42mm that i have,there is no cropping or photoshopping done, its the jpeg that came from the cam, i lost my CS5 so i have no use for raw files right now lol

 

[Overread]

I've no full understanding of what is available for the 4/3 mount in the way of macro lenses - its a system I don't use myself I don't know the lenses on offer.

However one thing I can help on is understanding macro - when it comes to photography, excluding macro labels on zoom lenses (which almost always refers to a zoom lens with close focusing, but not true macro), all macro prime (single focal length) lenses achieve what is known as "true macro". This is when the size of the image reflected on the sensor (or film) is the same size as it is in real life.

So a 5mm object will be reflected as a 5mm image on the sensor - a 1:1 ratio

This magnifiaction is not linked to the focal length of the lens, thus a 60mm macro lens or even a 35mm macro lens will give you (at the closest focusing point) the exact same image frame as one of 150mm or 200mm - because in all cases the image is still at that same 1:1 ratio. The difference however is that the longer the focal length the further away from the subject you will achieve this focusing - so a 35mm will have to be very close to the subject whilst a 200mm will be a good distance away. This directly affects working with insects as often working a little further away lessens the chances of spooking the insect.

 

[AnthonyB]

Thank you sir :thumbup::thumbup:, in that case i might have to pick up 2 lens, beceause i have alot of exotic animals/insects that are quite used to being near a camera, which i would assume would give me a better picture then the 200mm and such macro lens that have a longer focal length ?

but i do take a few of wild insects, would it be more economical to go for one that has a longer focal length , will i get roughly the same quality out of both ?

sorry if thats a but jumbled but im still a noob so :er:

 

[Overread]

From the prime macro lenses on the market at the moment there isn't a poor choice image quality wise. There are minor differences between them but these will only really show up in a studio controled test with the lenses shooting side by side and then the quality control on the individual lenses being tested will also be a factor.

It's thus safe to say that in real world shooting a long and a short focal length macro lens will, for macro distances, give you pretty much the same level of image quality. What will differ is the price and other features of the lens (Eg its focusing type, the speed of the auto focus, internal or extension focusing).
One other factor is that a longer focal length macro will also give an increased amount of background blurring to shots than a shorter length one will.


As for having two or just one I have to say that for outdoor shooting most people favour a 100mm macro lens or longer whilst for indoor I often find shorter is a bit easier to work with sometimes since its easier to move around with a shorter distance to focus in. In the end its a hard choice to make but I would say go for 100mm or longer ideally to start with and then if you feel the need you can always add a second macro lens to your setup for closer working if you do a lot of it.

 

[AnthonyB]

thank you again, i think im going to go for a 75-150mm macro or somewhere in that area, so would you go for a prime lens ?

 

[Dao]

If you are thinking getting the macro lens for taking insect photos, I will say get at least around 100mm or longer (as mentioned by Overread)

Sigma 105 has a version for 3/4 camera
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG macro lens

150mm is what Overread (I believe) has and also support 3/4 camera
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX APO DG HSM Macro

 

[AnthonyB]

Thanks again guys, now its just finding one for sale for a decent price lol

 

[Don Kondra]

The 70-300mm has macro capabilities and is relatively inexpensive.

Cheers, Don

 

[Overread]

As a very rough and totally not scientific display this is about what a 70-300mm macro can achieve:

and this is what a true macro lens can achieve (that is a prime macro lens)

As you can see whilst both perform well the macro prime lens is capable of getting a far more magnified shot than the zoom lens.

 

[Don Kondra]

A prime normally will have better IQ than a zoom and will stand up to severe cropping but have you considered minimum focusing distance for the work to be done ?

The 35mm Macro is a true 1:1 with a closest focusing distance of .15m

The 50mm Macro is 1:2 with a closest focusing distance of .24m

The 70-300 zoom is .96m

Cheers, Don

 

[Overread]

Aye but in your examples the 50mm and 70-300mm might have further to work with but they also achieve less of a magnification than the true macro lens. Whilst if you were to use a 100mm or 150mm true macro lens (as for example the sigma mentioned earlier) you get more working range and the 1:1 magnifiaction ability.

 

[Don Kondra]

Aye but you may be forgetting the x2 crop factor of Oly lens

Zuiko Digital Lenses

Cheers, Don

 

[Overread]

True but (and I say this without directed working experience of working in other crop factors) remember that magnifiaction isn't exactly like crop factor. I don't think a 1:2 magnifiaction on a 2*crop camera body is the same as a 1:1 on a fullframe body.

Certainly with 1.6 crop we still have to use true macro lenses to get to true magnifiaction since that is defined by the lifesize reprodution ratio on the sensor - so I would assume that the same is going to remain true for the olympus as well.

 

[AnthonyB]

Thats my other issue, i dont have a huge budget im looking for something in the 2-400$ range
Mainly i would like something that i dont have to be 10mm away to get a decent shot, i would be happy with something around the 50mm range, im just having trouble finding one that is 4/3 because i don't really want to get an adapter due to the budget.

 

[Don Kondra]

Uh, have you tried McBains, Henry's, Vistek, Don's, etc...

In the states B&H, etc.

For used there's ebay of course or FourThirdsPhoto.com | Home

Not quite sure what you mean by "adapter" unless you are thinking of using none Oly lens ? Or do you mean Oly (OM) film camera lens ?

Cheers, Don