Macro Lens?

Early · 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.

I think the a true macro lens will give you a flat field, but don't say I told you so. Anyhow, for serious macro work, you should get the real thing.

051fdrof · Sep 8, 2008

Hello! I finally have a good reason to stop lurking. I own an E510 and recently purchased a Zuiko 70-300 f4.0-5-6.

It works well for closeups of bugs and flowers and is a heck of a zoom for nature photography. It's not a true macro lens, so you have to stand three feet away from a flower instead of three inches, but so what? It's not a ton of money and you'll end up with a great compromise between a macro lens and a ginormous zoom.

Go for it!

epp_b · Sep 8, 2008

PhilGarber said:
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!

That lene has a "macro" switch that can cause it to reproduce at 1:2 between 200mm and 300mm. Technically, it's not a "real" macro lens, but I suppose it's better than no macro at all.

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.

I missed the word "can" between "they" and "have". They work pretty well on my 18-55, but do have distortion. They are basically useless on anything longer than 55mm.

Bifurcator · Sep 8, 2008

epp_b said:
I missed the word "can" between "they" and "have". They work pretty well on my 18-55, but do have distortion. They are basically useless on anything longer than 55mm.

Hehe, it sounds like you're a victim of some really bad ones. I use them mostly at 200mm to 400mm and the results in image quality are identical to the lens itself without the filter. The good ones do not distort at all and add no detectable CA at any focal length. But I have bad ones too that do both.

I have just about a full set of both good ones and bad ones at 49ø, 52ø, 55ø, 58ø, 67ø and 72ø. I dunno exactly how many right now but I think it was 48 a year ago. I've bought 3 more I think since then. I have a tiny set at 37ø too but they're just antiques and probably really poor quality.

epp_b · Sep 8, 2008

Hehe, it sounds like you're a victim of some really bad ones.

Guess so

I use them mostly at 200 to 400 and the results in image quality are identical to the lens itself without the filter. The good ones do not distort at all and add no detectable CA at any focal length. But I have bad ones too that do both.

What exact make/model of close-up diopters do you have?

photo28 · Sep 8, 2008

PhilGarber said:
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!

They dont make the 70-300mm for Olympus.

Bifurcator · Sep 8, 2008

epp_b said:
What exact make/model of close-up diopters do you have?

All manner and make. But if you're looking for a recommendation I would have to say Kenko "AC" grade are the best for the money at $20 ~ $30. Hoya also makes an achromat set that is good for around $50ea. I have an apochromatic set made (or at least sold) by Sony that are excellent but a bit on the pricey side at $70 a pop (at least back then). Those came with/for a $50K video camera I bought 5 years ago or so and are ø 72mm.