sallymack Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Hi, I have an Olympus E-PL5 with kit lens (14-42mm). I've always maintained that I don't want a macro lens because I'd never be able to leave home since I'd be photographing my shoelaces, the doorknob, etc. <br> <br> However, last weekend I wound up photographing a gorgeous cabbage and wondered if a macro lens would be in order. I like sharp focus, most of the cabbage pictures were taken at f/22. I liked the zoom, too, but could live without it if quality suffered. <br> <br> I've never had a macro lens. I'd probably be shooting things similar to the cabbage, sunlight-on-leaf details if I could get closer, perhaps smaller, probably not shoelaces.<br> <br> Does anyone have a macro lens to recommend? Or do I even need one? <br> <br> Thanks. --Sally<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 <p>Hally Sally,<br> I would get an SLR macro or micro lens and an adapter for your camera. The SLT macro lenses can be inexpensive. Try a Nikkor 55/3.5 micro. It is amazingly sharp. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronhartman Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 <p>There are 2 excellent native m4/3 lenses out there that will directly fit your camera and will keep auto focus and auto aperture: the Olympus 60mm f/2.8 and The Panasonic 45mm f/2.8. Both will be sharper then your zoom and focus closer. But neither is inexpensive.</p> <p>That said, any lenses on m4/3 at f/22 are going to lose a lot of sharpness, due to diffraction. Even after stopping down to f/8 or f/11, resolution is reduced. </p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCL Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 <p>Depending on the magnification you want, a good choice would be the Nikkor mentioned above, or a similar one from another major mfgr with the appropriate adapter. I personally like using my old 50mm Canon FD 3.5 macro with an inexpensive adapter on my E-PL2 ...you should be able to do the whole job for under $100 USD. That would be the equivalent of using a 100mm macro lens on a 35mm or full frame body.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 <p>Extension tubes do a great job and are inexpensive.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 <p>Ann added bonus is that you will be using the middle 50% of the lens, so you will get the sharpest portion.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sallymack Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 Thanks, all. There are more options than I'd thought. And wowza! are macro lenses expensive! --Sally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnfarrar Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 <p>Sally - another route, cheap but involving more hassle when you take pictures, is to buy (a) a used enlarger lens with a 39 mm thread (these are very cheap; a 50 mm lens will be 100 mm equivalent and so excellent for macro) - I can recommend the CE Rokkor 50 mm f2.8, plus (b) a set of used 39 mm extension tubes (very cheap) plus a cheap 39mm (M39) to M43 adapter. Total cost might be between £40 and 100, and very versatile. Can also recommend the Nikkor 55/3.5 mentioned above with a Nikon to M43 adapter. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 <p>I use the 55mm f3.5 nikkor with a cheap adaptor. Works amazing.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_robison3 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 <p>If you can successfully manually focus them then adapted macro lenses in the 50mm to 55mm range are a bargain even though you would have to buy an adapter for them. I have a Vivitar 55mm f2.8 in M42 mount (Pentax screw mount) that focuses to 1:1 that I use on my E-410 to copy negatives. At f8 it has enough field flatness and resolution to pick up the grain on 1/2 frame negatives. I found it in a pawn shop for $15 about 6 years ago. With so many adapting legacy lenses to mirrorless cameras prices are higher today but still represent a good value.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamie_robertson2 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 <p>Simple close up lenses are inexpensive and are surprisingly good. They screw directly on to the front of your existing lens and allow you to focus closer. Try it, you'll love it!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 <p>Close-up lenses will lower the resolution of the lens that is used, Jamie. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 "Close-up lenses will lower the resolution of the lens that is used, Jamie." I am about to add a Nikon 5T two element achromat to my Lumix zoom lens. It preserves quality, and takes up little space and gives 1.5 diopter to the base lens. See John Shaw's book Closeups in Nature. I have a four thirds macro lens for heavier duty and heavier weight in bag.....just an additional option follow on to Jamie's comment. Achromat closeups are made by Canon and perhaps other companies. Unlike extension tubes they do not effect light loss and preserve automation of the base lens. But no you do not absolutely need a macro lens for many closeups, within perhaps up to 1/2 life size range, which covers a whole lot of stuff you might shoot close, that is in my opinion of course. Try the closeup fllter adapter for the heck of it and see what you think. Stop down your lens a bit even with an achromat diopter screw on item. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 <p>I have such a Nikon close-up lens. I bought it after taking a workshop with John Shaw.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harold_gough Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 <p><img src="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/26/1071426.jpg" alt="" width="768" height="1024" /><img src="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/77/1077977.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="793" /><img src="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/36/1086436.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="509" /><img src="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/77/1080477.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="615" /><img src="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/37/1068137.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="716" /> <br /> Having tried numerous lenses with my EP-2, now with my EM-1, I find the go-to macro lens of my choice is a Vivitar Series 1 105mm macro. It also serves as an excellent medium telephoto. With Kiron TC behind it and/ or an achromat supplementary in front of it, you can get down to a field of view as narrow as 3mm.<br /> The first is more of close-up.<br /> The next 3 are, of subjects about 2cm wide, from various distances.<br /> In the last image the slime mould bodies are about 1mm across. This time I had a Raynon MSN-202 on the front. <br /> All by TTL flash, typically at f11.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hstelljes Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 <p>Hi Sally, You've been given a great deal of excellent advice from the above posters. I would only add that if you are going to get very involved in macro photography then consider the aforementioned oly 60mm f2.8. It's quite good and you can even get one used for under 400. If it's going to be an occasional thing then pick one of the alternatives. Best of luck.<br> Holger</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sallymack Posted February 28, 2015 Author Share Posted February 28, 2015 Thanks, all. Since I am somewhat technology challenged, I needed simple. So, I purchased the 60mm 2.8 a few weeks ago and like it. The camera's manual focusing allows me to take the picture I want instead of the one the camera focuses on. We seldom agree on what should be in focus. <br><br> Here's one of the pictures I took the first time out with the lens.<br><br> Thanks, again. --Sally<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now