Best way to make P42.5 1.7 macro friendly?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Zuri, May 25, 2016.

  1. Zuri

    Zuri Mu-43 Regular

    156
    Apr 20, 2016
    Hey

    What's my options to make my 42.5mm f1.7 lens macro friendly? Specifically taking close photos of flowers.

    Is it possible?

    Thank you!

    Sent from my SM-G935F using Mu-43 app
     
  2. SVQuant

    SVQuant Mu-43 Top Veteran

    877
    Sep 20, 2015
    SF Bay Area, California, USA
    Sameer
    At the 42.5 focal length, both extension tubes and close-up adapters(diopters) should work well. Really depends on your budget. If you go the extension tube route, make sure that you get ones with electrical contacts so that you can still autofocus. There is also the Olympus MCON P-02 which should work fine.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Ordinarily my recommendation would probably be a Raynox DCR-150 diopter because it comes with a clip-on adapter that makes it incredibly quick and easy to take the adapter on and off...

    ...but the 42.5/1.7 is such a tiny lens and only has 37mm front filter threads that I'm not even sure it would work!

    Personally I find extension tubes too fiddly, unless I am planning to use it exclusively for macro. The macro diopters also work really well with longer FL zoom lenses in case you have one of those and want to try out higher magnifications and/or longer working distances for other subjects.
     
  4. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    my personal opinion?

    Put the 42.5/1.7 back i nthe camera bag and get yourself a dedicated macro lens. It's just worlds easier, IMHO.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    I 2nd this option
     
  6. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    I have a set of extension tubes and a +4 Diopter Lens (probably should have gotten a +2). I find I like the tubes when working at home in a controlled shoot and the Diopter when I'm out and just want something closer than the already close focus ability of the 42.5.
     
  7. Zuri

    Zuri Mu-43 Regular

    156
    Apr 20, 2016
    I thought about it and still thinking about it I'm just on a tight budget. Does it makes huge difference in terms of quality and macro capability? Or the recommendation is only because it's easier?



    Sent from my SM-G935F using Mu-43 app
     
  8. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    Both, but the easier is going to be more prevalent.
     
  9. Zuri

    Zuri Mu-43 Regular

    156
    Apr 20, 2016
    Hmm... if I have an adapter will I need to remove it every time I don't want to use macro or it is a permanent attachment to the lens?

    Is there any good macro lens that will not tear my wallet?

    Sent from my SM-G935F using Mu-43 app
     
  10. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    I have two macro lenses, a Sigma 90mm/2.8 MF Macro (1:2) that I got for ~$100, and a Vivitar 55/2.8 Macro (1:1) that I got for ~$50. Honestly, the reason that I bought them is because I didn't take portraits enough to justify the AF 45/1.8, and having them let me do double-duty as macro and portrait lenses.

    Honestly, I would say that you can get just as good image quality with a macro diopter and your 42.5/1.7 as with a dedicated macro lens. You'd have to be really pixel peeping to notice a big difference. Some of the best macro photos I've ever seen have been with a macro diopter on a Panasonic 1/2.3" superzoom on this forum - lighting and technique are way more important than the lens.

    20642601706_1e0bc7d497_b.

    This shot was taken with the "soft" Panasonic 100-300 @ 150mm, and a Raynox DCR-150. I have it printed at 16x20" above my couch.

    So yeah, it is definitely convenience that would be the main reason to get a dedicated macro lens, not image quality.

    Adapters are cheap and easy, they cost $10 and I leave them on my lenses permanently. But any adapted lens with be manual focus only, so if you want to do that, then just go with the diopter or extension tubes. Personally, I much prefer manual focussing for macro photos, though. AF almost always focusses on the wrong thing, and it's just a pain.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    Adapters are temporary.

    I like the Tamron 90mm f/2.8. Get the one with the aperture ring and a whatever to m43 adapter and you are good to go. Manual focus, but most macro shooters prefer that anyway.
    Here are some example shots of what I got with the Tamron. Not all with m43 gear - but the lens performs:
    Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro

    Last I saw, the Tamron will set you back ~$300

    Here is an additional link:
    Macro

    In that album, there are some images that are taken with a Phoenix 100mm f/3.5 - I believe it is a rebranded Cosina lens. I got mine years and years ago for $100 brand new. Does close to 1:1 alone, add one the supplied adapter lens and it will do 1:1.

    The other lens that people sometimes overlook is the Olympus 12-50. It has a "macro mode" that is 43mm, so roughly 85mm FOV. I've seen them go used for as little as $150 if you look around.

    I do not have any of them anymore because I just did not really like doing macro. I used the Tamron more for a portrait lens. The close focusing of the Olympusd 12-40/2.8 and the 40-150/2.8 are good enough for me and what I need to do.

    Happy hunting.
     
  12. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Obvious answer is the MCON-P02 (Works great on the 42.5mm) or some AF extension tubes.

    A 1:1 macro lens is way overkill for flowers, IMO. You shouldn't need even close to 1:1 (and 1:1 on m4/3 is a lot closer than 1:1 on other formats, too)

    I have owned the 60mm f2.8, 45mm f2.8 and both are outstanding macro lenses. I also own a manual macro prime. But I bought the MCON-P02 because I like being able to photograph unexpected macro subjects, but I don't want to lug an extra full size macro lens around all the time. The Mcon-P02 is about like carrying an extra battery and can take the 42.5mm or the 14-42 II ( from either brand) to about 1:2.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Zuri

    Zuri Mu-43 Regular

    156
    Apr 20, 2016
    Here are some photos I was able to shot just with the 42.5mm. All photos with f1.7. What should I expect with the MCON-P02?

    By the way is it better/different from Raynox DCR-150? In which way?

    Thank you

    1464236962381. 1464237025539. 1464237037754.

    Sent from my SM-G935F using Mu-43 app
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2016
  14. twokatmew

    twokatmew Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 1, 2012
    Lansing, MI, US
    Margaret
    A 37-43mm step-up ring works just fine. The adapter is only good on filter sizes between 52 and 67mm.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
     
  15. twokatmew

    twokatmew Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 1, 2012
    Lansing, MI, US
    Margaret
    I was referring to the adapter that comes with the Raynox DCR-150. It fits lenses that take filter sizes between 52 and 67mm. If you remove the Raynox from its spring loaded adapter, you can use stepping rings to use it on any lens. The Raynox is 43mm on the rear side.

    It's 4.8 diopters, so magnifies much more than the Oly M-CON P-02 that works on 37 and 46mm lenses using the included 37-46 step-up ring. I use it on both my Oly 25/1.8 and 45/1.8 with great results. (Close ups are good enough for me.) For my 14-140 II, I'd go for the Raynox.

    Although I briefly owned the Oly 60/2.8 macro, I didn't use it enough to justify keeping it.

    You can get the Raynox DCR-150 from Amazon and B&H for $45. Great deal!

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
     
  16. Zuri

    Zuri Mu-43 Regular

    156
    Apr 20, 2016
    Thank you! Raynox DCR-150 it is!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    IMO it will be too much magnification. You only get a small window of focusing range with closeup lenses, so too much can be worse than too little.
     
  18. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    A 4.8 diopter on the 42.5/1.7 (with a native magnification of 0.2x) becomes a 0.44x magnification lens. That's not crazy in macro terms, but you're right that it's still a fairly narrow range of focus. However, you can clearly see in his first and last shots that he's posted there he's focussing beyond the min-focus distance of the lens, so some additional magnification would benefit his work.

    It will definitely have a different perspective, though! You will only be further enlarging a portion of all of those images posted.

    I still do find close-up lenses fiddly unless I'm specifically "doing macro" and just leaving them clipped on to the lens and getting right in there. But for the very inexpensive price, and only having to carry something the size and thickness of a 43mm filter in a pocket, it doesn't seem like a terrible solution for that specific stuff.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Zuri

    Zuri Mu-43 Regular

    156
    Apr 20, 2016
    I can use the Raynox 150 with other lens right? I got 25mm f1.7 & 14-140mm mk ii.

    What results should I expect if I'll use it with these lenses?


    Sent from my SM-G935F using Mu-43 app
     
  20. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Pointless on the 25mm. Excellent on the 14-140, you will get a lot of magnification at 140mm but can decrease it by reducing the focal length.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1