Equipment Macro dilemma...

Hey guys,

I'm calling out for some advice about macro lenses.

So a dedicated macro lens is next on my very long shopping list and I'd like to make a good and informed decision here. My camera body is Olympus E-3, which has a crop-factor of 2. This presents a bit of a problem.

On the top of my list has been the well performing Sigma 150mm macro lens, which has had good reviews. So far I haven't even thought about other alternatives, but in a thread (can't remember which one) where Vers showed us his macro equipment, he said that even on his full-frame body the 150mm seems sometimes a bit much. So double that since it's going to be attached to an Olympus and we have 300mm, which by his standards would be much too much.

The situation is of course that Olympus isn't like Canon or Nikon, so there aren't too much to choose from. So getting down from that, next would be the Sigma 105mm, which still would be longer than 150mm on a full-frame, 210mm that is. Then there's the 50mm f/2 Zuiko, which definitely is a good lens and would be 100mm equivalent and finally the Zuiko 35mm f/3,5.

When the Sigmas are concerned, I'd rather go with the 150mm version, since it has the HSM motor and generally it has been said that it's much better built than the 105mm version. From Olympus I think there's only one choice, and that would be the 50mm one. 35mm is definitely too short for my purposes and to top that off, it's a "standard" - line lens without weather proofing and in general, I haven't been so fond of them in the past.

Lengthwise the Sigma 70mm macro lens would be perfect, but unfortunately it doesn't come in Olympus flavor (damn). Although it doesn't have the HSM either.

One option to get close to the 150mm equivalent is to use the 50mm Zuiko with the 1,4x teleconverter, which would make it 140mm equivalent at f/4. This option doesn't intrigue me too much since I don't have the teleconverter and it costs about the same amount as the damn lens itself (although it can be used with other lenses as well). And also it drops the speed of the lens down to f/4...see, I do have problems

So give me your 2 cents, heck, gimme your wallet if you feel like it. This is open for discussion and any answers are appreciated!

Darkened

 

buy the Sigma150, then just take one more step back

you'll love it.

 

Well, just to correct you the Sigma is absolutely perfect on FF, it was a 1.6x where the 150 can be a touch long. This was in response to OleJ thinking about getting the 180mm (which FWIW happened to be a typo). This of course is only one opinion, there are many happy owners of 1.6x bodies that love the Sigma 150, I just prefer it on my 5D/1DIII over the 40D. YMMV. Now that I'm using tubes I can see where the larger crop factor may come in handy more often as it gives a bit more working distance, which is why I use my 150 almost exclusively on the 1DIII. I haven't shot Oly 4/3's at all so it's hard for me to make any recommendations as to what FL to look into but the Oly 50/2 (100mm effective FL) or the upcoming Tamron 60/2 (assuming they make a 4/3 mount) would be two lenses worth looking into for sure. If you want try out the Sigma, who knows you may enjoy the seemingly excessively long effective FL...especially for shooting subjects you can't get close enough to.

 

150mm on a 4/3 mount is 300mm, and that means a heavy head and tripod no matter how you slice it. 300mm macro isn't the easiest thing to handle. you're going to need to get close to or butt up against 1/300th and that is past your sync speed. Which means hot lights or backing off to flash at 1/250th to minimize vibration.

 

You have somewhat of a point, then again I know guys who shoot the MP-E 65 at 5x handheld--using flash for the most part. Either way I'd recommend a solid tripod anyhow, at least to start with. It's an interesting concept to say the least...Obviously I can't recommend it but I'd love to try it

 

That was sort of my point, that after a certain focal length flash was a sure fire (hehehehe pun) way to freeze motion. But that complicates things if you aren't willing to invest the time/energy into that.

Best to keep the effective focal length to something where 1/focal length can be reasonable with ambient light. Macro loves light. so anything close to 1/250th and you need to start thinking in terms of bright ambient, bright hot lights or staying inside the flash sync. the 150 sigma brings you past the sync speed, which IMO, makes it harder to shoot steady in ambient or hot lights.

A good 50mm (100mm) macro gives both options on 4/3's. it can keep you under 1/250th to allow flash lighting and give the flexibility to surge past it when the light is good. Still, an above average quality head and tripod is called for in both cases.

It's one of the hidden downsides to 4/3's, IMO. The recent move to 35mm sensors in the market has the effect of bringing shutter speeds down to the real effective focal lengths, adding more lee way to the use of flash. Which doesn't negate the use of available light (it certainly adds to it), it just adds more flexibility to the tool kit. In 4/3's terms, the ideal would be a 25mm, 30mm or 35mm macro, giving the best of both worlds.

 

Firstly I'd like to thank everyone that has contributed to this thread.

I did a little research last night and the situation is still wide open.

Some things I found out about the Sigma 150mm lens did make a bit cautious towards it.

The most disturbing news was that this lens combined to the E-3 will not work for some reason. It has to be sent back to Sigma for maintenance. This information came from here.

I don't know what the situation is like now, but that review isn't too old now is it. Here's what they said about it in a nutshell:

"My lens has come back from service, and Sigma has confirmed that there is an incompatibility between this lens and the Olympus E-3. Depending on the individual lens, it may require a firmware upgrade, performed at the service centre, or it may require a new main board. In my case, that took almost two months. Apparently the boards for the 4/3 mount are lovingly handcrafted out of pure mithril.".

If someone knows if this issue has been solved, please chime in!

The other thing all the articles about Sigma and Olympus working together had in common was that this combination is much slower regarding the auto-focus than Sigma combined with Canon or Nikon bodies.

Then I started looking at the 50mm macro from Olympus itself and found out pretty much the same things that I already knew about it. It seems to be a really good lens at least for its price, but there's one thing putting me a bit off. Almost all the photos I found say at PBase which were taken with this lens were portraits or even landscape photos. It seems that this lens is quite good as an all-around lens, but since I already own the 12-60mm Zuiko and the Sigma 30mm f/1,4, it doesn't make much sense for me to buy something that will add only so much to my current setup.

My interest in macro photography is similar to what Vers has shown here many times, so bugs and such and not so much portraits

I'll have to try and dig up some insect macros taken with the 50mm Zuiko before I can even start making up my mind here.

Keep on commenting here, macro for me is a step into a new world, so every bit of help is appreciated.

Thanks again.

Darkened

 

Jaane, Just because people use a lens for things outside it's intended purpose doesn't mean you can't use it for it's intended purpose. The Oly 50/2 is a true macro lens as it focuses at 1:2 (1:1 35mm equiv), neither your 12-60 or 30/1.4 do so. In fact, that just makes the lens all the more versatile--something you should embrace. As for the AF issues with the Sigma...if you're buying a macro lens you buy it for macro use, which if used correctly depends entirely on MF. I read reviews on B&H and there are actually Oly people who bought this lens to use as a sports/action lens and gave it a bad review because the AF wasn't fast stating under cons: "Blurry focus/slow focus". TBH, and regardless of the compatibility issues, that is completely ignorant. Obviously your safest bet is the Zuiko, having being designed specifically for use on Oly bodies. FL wise it's also a seemingly better fit.

 

FWIW I'd say the majority of macro shooters shoot using artificial lighting. When I started I loved ambient, but now that I'm using flash I have realized the greater potential. No one said macro was cheap or easy and generally speaking investment in time/energy and money come hand in hand. It's a specialized field, and as you know specialized equipment comes at a cost. That's not to say you can't do it on the cheap, because you can, but often times the easiest solutions are the more costly ones. Again I can't speak for the Sigma 150+4/3's combo directly but it is something I've put on my list to try out. I do agree with you, however, that the 50mm comes off as the more sound option.

 

Hey Vers,

Thank you again for your input.

The reason I made the statement about the non-macro photos taken with the 50mm Zuiko is that I haven't yet found too many photos taken with it that could be compared to say your work. I know it is a good lens and capable of 1:2 (1:1) magnification, which is something my other lenses can't do, but I'd surely like to see it in action before buying

And on the other hand, if people are using it for landscapes and portraits, that's all the better, since it's not a one trick pony so to say.

For Sigmas AF speed, I'd never try to use it as a "poor mans" 150mm f/2 (which would be a nice lens ). So the AF speed wouldn't be a problem, that was just a sidenote I picked up when I was reading the reviews. The more serious problem is the compatibility issue with my camera, the E-3. Hopefully that's fixed now, not only for my sake, but for everyone buying this lens.

For now I'm leaning towards the 50mm Zuiko, mainly because it won't be too long, there's an option to use either the ringflash or the dual side mounted macro flash system from Olympus (although they are quite expensive) and finally, it's a bit cheaper than the Sigma.

So once again, thanks goes to the people here at the forums, this time especially to Vers and Jumeira Johnny!

The purchase of the lens might take a while, since I'll have to fill my bank account a bit before buying. But since this is Olympus gear we're talking about, this information will still be relevant then, mainly because I'm not holding my breath over new lenses from them

If Vers or JJ would like to tell me their opinion about the two flash systems which can be attached to the 50mm lens, that would be appreciated also. I'll never know what I'll end up buying once I'm in the right mindset

Darkened

 

Well, first it's an f/2.8 lens--but I like your thinking Second, isn't the compatibility issue directly linked to AF? I understand you may be concerned with that but considering it's a macro lens it's sorta irrelevant, unless of course you planned to use it as a standard tele as well which for the Canon/Nikon mounts it works well as. As for a flash system I'll have to get back to you on the specifics but FWIW I use a flat/straight bracket, mini giottos ballhead, 580EXII, lumiquest mini softbox, and an OC-E3 off shoe cord.

 

Hey again Vers,

The compatibility issue is, as you said, linked to AF, front focusing to be precise. It would be mainly for macro work, but for versatility, I'd like also to use it as a standard tele from time to time. So that's where the front focusing issue would present itself. Also the working distance might be too long with this lens combined to the 2x crop factor.

For purchasing the Zuiko, it just might be sooner than I expected. I found it from UK ebay for 200€ less than it's asking price here in Finland, so I'm thinking about going for it (damn, I should be banned from ebay ).

A short description of the flash systems can be found here.

Darkened

 

Haha, good to hear As for flash systems, unless you've got the cash for a MRL or MTL, I'd recommend going with a dedicated TTL flash unit and the above list of other parts and pieces. However if you are only planning to use a flash strictly for macro then by all means go with the twin lite system, the price difference is well worth it over the ring lite.

 

Hey again Vers,

Thanks again for your answer, but this time it needs a bit of explaining for me

So, what are MRL and MTL, never heard those acronyms and even the all mighty google didn't find anything useful with those words?

And you would go with the twin flash system rather than the ring lite, if I understood correctly? And yes, this flash system would be for macro work only, since I have regular flashes for other work.

On top of these or probably before the flash system, there's the EX-25 extension tube which will increase the magnifying ratio to 0,98. So this might be a worth-while accessory to get don't you think?

Sincerely

Darkened aka. Janne

P.S. The twin flash system seems to be quite a bit cheaper here in Finland than the ring flash system (don't know the reason though).

 

Hey, Janne. MRL (macro ring lite) and MTL (macro twin lite) to clear up and confusion. If the Oly macro systems are anything like the Canon/Nikon systems the MTL is a all around better light system than the MRL. Ring lite's often make for flatter looking light, while twin lite's offer more versatility and are much easier to diffuse. As for ET's (extension tubes) I'm sure you can find a cheaper option--you don't need tubes that allow AF. Unfortunately Kenko doesn't make a tube set for Oly--like many other third party systems.

 

Hey Vers,

Okay, thanks for the clarification

For the extension tube, I looked around the net a bit, but it seems that I can only get a set of tubes from the far east and they looked very DIY - type sets.

That wouldn't be a problem, after all, they don't have any optics or electronics inside. The problem would be that without the contact pins, there wouldn't be any chance for me to change the aperture. Olympus lenses don't have manual aperture setting rings.

Since macro is quite new to me, I might be wrong about this, but wouldn't I be shooting at f/2 all the time without the contact pins in the extension tube.

Also here goes a curse towards Olympus, why can't you make cheaper stuff

Darkened

 

be glad you don't have canon otherwise you would susceptable to the L series addiction

 

That's true, but Olympus has the "Top Pro" line, which is even more expensive than the L-series...nice lenses though...

Darkened

 

lol, are you sure

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/116642-USA/Canon_2527A001_Super_Telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6L.html

 

Okay, okay, I knew you were going to throw that in my face

So ok, the L-series has more expensive glass than Oly Top Pro - series.

Darkened