40-150 PRO Use as A Macro Lens

newphoto

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Messages
42
Location
Oklahoma
Real Name
Colin
Someday soon I hope to receive my new 40-150 F2.8 PRO lens. In anticipation of this, I sold my Oly 60mm Macro lens. My reasoning was that the new lens goes nearly to half life size and I seldom use any macro lens beyond this. Just really not into photographing the compound eyes of a fly. On the other hand I enjoy photographing butterflies, dragon flies, reptiles, and wild flowers. My reasoning is that the new lens will give me greater working distance for insects, faster auto focusing, and softer bokeh in the background, and just be much more versatile all around. Not sure what the reproduction size will be with the 1.4X, but .43/1 with the native lens is probably good enough in most circumstances. My question is do you think someday soon I will be repurchasing an Olympus macro lens, or for my uses, will the new 40-150 Pro suffice?
 

noncho

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Nov 20, 2014
Messages
18
I have tested 40-150 for macro and it's pretty good.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


BUT, if you need 1:1 macro you need a macro lens. Have in mind also that the maximum magnification with 40-150 is at 150mm, which is good for moving objects, but not that good for close-up. The DOF of 60 2.8 at macro is much more than the one with 40-150 at 150.
 

newphoto

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Messages
42
Location
Oklahoma
Real Name
Colin
Nice spider! Yes the DOF of the macro is greater at F2.8 than the other at 150, but keep in mind that the dof of all lenses is the same at the same focal length and aperture. To get the same dof with the 40-150 as the macro, I could just back off to 60mm, or stop down more. I would seldom want to get a larger subject size then the spider you show here. Thanks.
 

Ramsey

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
745
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
Not sure about the filter size, but the raynox 250 or 150 could be of use. I know people use it with telephoto lenses, with great results...

sent from my Xperia Z
 

Carbonman

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 10, 2014
Messages
2,385
Location
Vancouver BC
Real Name
Graham
With the 1.4x converter, you should get to.6/1 magnification (same minimum focus). Your maximum aperture is down to f4, plus you'll want to stop down to at least f8 to get any significant DOF at the resulting 210mm.
 

mcasan

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
1,665
Location
Atlanta
Try a closeup lens in front of it. Canon used to make a very good one. And it someone makes them..try extension tubes.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
You can get fully coupled m4/3 extension tubes that will allow for much greater magnification and the extended working distance will assist in capturing the more skittish critters.
 

newphoto

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Messages
42
Location
Oklahoma
Real Name
Colin
Not a huge deal with closeups, but wouldn't I lose auto focus with an extension tube or a closeup filter???
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
Not a huge deal with closeups, but wouldn't I lose auto focus with an extension tube or a closeup filter???
Nope! The set I bought is fully coupled, just like the tele-extender, so full AF etc. You never lose AF with close-up lenses, it's just another filter.
 

newphoto

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Messages
42
Location
Oklahoma
Real Name
Colin
Oh yes I remember now. You lose the ability to focus at infinity with the extension tubes. Thanks for the suggestions!
 

noncho

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Nov 20, 2014
Messages
18
Nice spider! Yes the DOF of the macro is greater at F2.8 than the other at 150, but keep in mind that the dof of all lenses is the same at the same focal length and aperture. To get the same dof with the 40-150 as the macro, I could just back off to 60mm, or stop down more. I would seldom want to get a larger subject size then the spider you show here. Thanks.
At 60mm you will not get close enough with 40-150.
 

jyc860923

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
3,093
Location
Shenyang, China
Real Name
贾一川

Clint

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
2,378
Location
San Diego area, CA
Real Name
Clint
The choice of a close focusing lens has been ongoing for nearly 50 years as I've never been a fan of close focusing filters or extension tubes.

The lens I really liked was the Olympus 4/3s 50mm f/2.0 provides a .52X maximum image magnification and an extremely nice portrait lens. After selling it and getting the 12-40mm which wasn't quite what I wanted at .3X max, I purchased the 60mmf/2.8 macro. While it is an excellent lens and true macro lens it isn't the same as the 4/3s 50mm for portraits and I don't use macro enough to justify keeping a macro lens.

I'm really avoiding the urge to sell the 60mm and repurchase the 4/3s 50mm. It would be first lens I've sold then repurchased in over two decades - and I do not want to start down that road again. Hopefully you will find the 40-150 will meet your needs.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
I don't see any reason why the 40-150mm couldn't achieve very good macro, as I've used lenses up to 300mm with an extension tube for excellent results. The stand-off that the longer lenses provide is often a great advantage. It's the quality of the lens that can make the difference and the 40-150mm should be able to deliver.
 

denniscloutier

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
255
Location
North Saanich, B.C.
The DOF of 60 2.8 at macro is much more than the one with 40-150 at 150.
Actually, for a given magnification and f stop the depth of field is the same. That is, using the 150mm lens to get a half size image at f11 will give you the same depth of field as using a 60mm lens to get a half size image at f11. The only difference is the increased working distance.

You can check this yourself by plugging the numbers into a depth of field calculator.

My wife and I both shoot quite a bit of macro underwater and we own both the Oly 60mm and the Pany 45mm. We both prefer the Oly lens because a bit more working distance is nice for skittish critters.

Regards,
Dennis
 

Edmunds

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
173
The magnification of the 40-150mm f/2.8 is actually only 0.21x - the 0.42x figure is a "35mm equivalent" marketing gimmick of some sorts.

So actually, its not even 1:4 macro, and the 12-40, which is 0.3x magnification is actually better.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom