Hanna_Marie
newbie
Reged: 06/09/2008
Posts: 39
Loc: Scotland
|
|
I recently got myself a Olympus E-510 with 14-42 mm lens and 40-150mm. What sort of lens would i need for some good macro shots? As afforable as possible...
--------------------
Hanna-Marie
|
RogerMac
Hotshoe Shuffler
Reged: 25/03/2007
Posts: 499
|
|
Quote:
I recently got myself a Olympus E-510 with 14-42 mm lens and 40-150mm. What sort of lens would i need for some good macro shots? As afforable as possible...
I do really hope that this does not start an argument about the true meaning of "macro" but I am going to use it as meaning a field of view of 35mm
Unless I have missed one Oly have three in their line up:
35mm f3.5 FOV 18mm about £165
50mm f2 FOV 35mm about £350
70-300mm zoom FOV 35mm about £280
and Sigma have at least 3 (I do not know the FOV of these)
105mm f2.8 about £315
24mm f1.8 about £280
150mm f2.8 about £470
So you have to chose which is best for your pocket / needs. The 70-300 is difficult to hand hold (even with IS - DOF is so small) but is probably the only one that will allow you to photograph a butterfly in the garden. The 35mm has a very good value for money reputation but one must get very close to use it. I have both the 50mm and the 70-300, of all my lenses the 50mm is probably my favourite as it doubles as an excellent portrait / document copying lens.
All that may help
Roger
|
datawise
old hand
Reged: 30/05/2006
Posts: 859
|
|
I've got the Oly 35mm f3.5 and it's a great little lens for the money. Apart from needing to get quite close it works well.
Sample photo with Oly 35mm f3.5
|
Hanna_Marie
newbie
Reged: 06/09/2008
Posts: 39
Loc: Scotland
|
|
Thank you both! That is very helpful information!
--------------------
Hanna-Marie
|
David_gu1
newbie
Reged: 26/03/2008
Posts: 44
Loc: Guildford, Surrey
|
|
Hanna-Marie,
I'm hopefully going to get my brand-new E-520 and Olympus 50mm f2 macro lens by Saturday. Will try and post a couple of macro pics on Sunday if that will help you.
thx
DK
|
Hanna_Marie
newbie
Reged: 06/09/2008
Posts: 39
Loc: Scotland
|
|
That be great! Looking forward to seeing them!
--------------------
Hanna-Marie
|
David_gu1
newbie
Reged: 26/03/2008
Posts: 44
Loc: Guildford, Surrey
|
|
Quote:
That be great! Looking forward to seeing them!
Hi Hannah-Marie,
OK, here we go. I got the lens this morning and spent some time shooting around Guildford Castle.
Here's a couple of samples.
Image 1: A=f5.6, S=1/80, Aperture priority, Centre-weighted metering, Daylight WB
Image 2: A=f6.3, S=1/40, Aperture priority, Centre-weighted metering, Daylight WB
The lens is pretty good for portrait work as well. However, Auto-focus does not work very well in low light situations. Even in daylight, I couldn't use narrow apertures such as f16 or f22, indicated shutter speed would jump to 2sec or 4sec etc. I didn't use a tripod for my pictures. It's only my first day with the lens mind you, so these are my first impressions only.
DPreview.com have also done a detailed review but is quite technical and a bit above my head. However, they do have a lot of sample images (they are better than mine!).
Hope this helps you. I have some more images if you are interested in seeing them, send me a PM and I will do a small gallery on Photobox.
thx
DK
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 643
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
Nice shots DK. I have the 50mm f2 and I find it to be a superb lens. Being a pro lens, it is dust and splash proof, but expensive. As Hannah-Marie intimates she is on a budget, I think she should probably look at the Zuiko 35mm macro. I have not used this myself, but users seem to be more than pleased with it. It is also 1:1 macro as opposed to 2:1 macro in the case of the 50mm f2.
--------------------
Rob
|
steve02
newbie
Reged: 23/01/2007
Posts: 40
|
|
Hi, I would highly recommend the 35mm f3.5 lens. I’ve had it for a couple of years now and it was my first purchase to add to my existing kit lenses. If you want to do close up work then this is the lens for you. I can’t understand why you would pay extra for the 50mm when it doesn’t even offer true macro. The only negative as already mentioned is that you have to get in pretty close to your subject, this is only a minor drawback and I’ve never had a problem with casting shadows it just makes it hard to shoot insects because you simply scare them away! But the 50mm wouldn’t solve this problem either, you would have to go for something like the Sigma 105mm f2.8. The 35mm f3.5 is cheap, tiny in size, light as a feather and is also quite versitile. I often use this lens for portrait work:
But what this lens does best is close up, the droplets that make up the triangle at the bottom of the image were each 1mm or less in diameter (although I did use the 35mm coupled with the extension tube). I hope this helps.
.jpg)
|
Benchmark
Is it safe?
Reged: 12/07/2005
Posts: 3034
Loc: Sedgefield, Co Durham
|
|
Quote:
I can’t understand why you would pay extra for the 50mm when it doesn’t even offer true macro.
There are two reasons that I can think of Stephen:
Firstly, many of us bought the 50 mm macro lens some time before the 35 mm lens was available; in my case, more than four years ago.
Secondly, the 50 mm macro lens is much faster that the 35 mm optic, and as good as that is, it still cannot quite match the performance of the 50 mm lens.
--------------------
Nigel CRIPN and Bar
Beware of the Dark Slide
|
Craftysnapper
enthusiast
Reged: 05/01/2006
Posts: 327
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I can’t understand why you would pay extra for the 50mm when it doesn’t even offer true macro.
There are two reasons that I can think of Stephen:
Firstly, many of us bought the 50 mm macro lens some time before the 35 mm lens was available; in my case, more than four years ago.
Secondly, the 50 mm macro lens is much faster that the 35 mm optic, and as good as that is, it still cannot quite match the performance of the 50 mm lens.
I'd also add that for portraits you can get a frame filling face with less distortion and at f2 very narrow dof that is bitingly sharp in its plane of focus can make for some interesting portraits ...heres a example web page
--------------------
My Glass Is 4/3rds Full
Paul
Edited by Craftysnapper (12/10/2008 18:20)
|
David_gu1
newbie
Reged: 26/03/2008
Posts: 44
Loc: Guildford, Surrey
|
|
Paul
your gallery is amazing!!
DK
|
steve02
newbie
Reged: 23/01/2007
Posts: 40
|
|
I was answering Hannah's post when I said "I can't understand why you would pay extra for the 50mm" based on her criteria that she wanted a lens that did macro and that was as affordable as possible.It's only my opinion but I don't think she needs to fork out the extra cash for the 50mm.
|
Benchmark
Is it safe?
Reged: 12/07/2005
Posts: 3034
Loc: Sedgefield, Co Durham
|
|
Quote:
I was answering Hannah's post when I said "I can't understand why you would pay extra for the 50mm" based on her criteria that she wanted a lens that did macro and that was as affordable as possible.It's only my opinion but I don't think she needs to fork out the extra cash for the 50mm.
Very fair commnet Steve. I had specific reasons for buying the 50 mm lens for my work, but I know that many others have bought the 35 mm macro lense since it was released, and have been very happy with it.
I was in no way criticising your opinion, simply explaining why some of us ended up with the more expensive of the two. And it is a brilliant lens. 
I just wish we could have a 25 mm f1.4 for the Four Thirds system to in place of those wonderful OM standard primes.
--------------------
Nigel CRIPN and Bar
Beware of the Dark Slide
|
Bone_Idle
Mr Maybe
Reged: 28/07/2006
Posts: 1392
Loc: Bradford
|
|
Quote:
I just wish we could have a 25 mm f1.4 for the Four Thirds system to in place of those wonderful OM standard primes.
there's always the Leica/Panasonic 25mm F/1.4. Although it's not cheap at £700!
--------------------
Thanks
Nick
|
Benchmark
Is it safe?
Reged: 12/07/2005
Posts: 3034
Loc: Sedgefield, Co Durham
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I just wish we could have a 25 mm f1.4 for the Four Thirds system to in place of those wonderful OM standard primes.
there's always the Leica/Panasonic 25mm F/1.4. Although it's not cheap at £700!
Has anyone here tried it?
There again, it seems a shame to use a lens like that with anything other than Pan F, Velvia or Kodachrome. 
--------------------
Nigel CRIPN and Bar
Beware of the Dark Slide
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
