Confused About Macro Adapters

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by tjdean01, Jul 2, 2013.

  1. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    842
    Feb 20, 2013
    In the future I might buy the 60mm or a legacy macro but for now I'm looking for a lightweight macro converter for the Oly 40-150 which I can throw in the pocket of my bag. I'll be getting the 45 f1.8 soon and it'd be nice if the adapter would fit that as well.

    I have the Oly 14-42 which focuses closer, but isn't zoomed in as far as the 40-150. I don't like this lens, but on the Olympus MCON-P01 page it shows that this lens would focus closer, nearly negating the fact that 40-150 is a much longer focal length. This guy shows that the bare 14-42 renders the 40-150 + MCON-P01 useless for macro. Yeah?

    This MCON-P01 would fit all my lenses, however and the Olympus page clearly shows specs regarding how narrow my focusing distances will be (at max zoom, I'm assuming?), but I'm not so sure about A) the quality of the glass? and B) if I can focus closer with other brand adapters? When lens specs say "minimum focus" for a zoom lens, do they mean at the widest focal distance?

    Next, there are the Marumi screw-in filter macro converters. So, I'd have to get the 58mm one to fit the 40-150's threads. Are there adapters that would work to use to get the 58mm one on the lenses with the smaller threads, or would that put the filter too far away from the len's outer glass? Also, what the difference between a 330 +3 and a 200 +5? They must mean 3.3x and 2x magnification, I'm assuming, but what's the +3? And what will my focus range be with each on the 40-150 at various zoom steps? And what is this?

    Finally, there's the 1.5x Raynox 150 or the 2.5x Raynox 250. How's the glass quality vs the Marumi? And what would be my focusing distances?

    Uggh. Sorry for all the questions!
     
  2. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Mu-43 Top Veteran

    655
    Mar 21, 2013
    N Essex, UK
    Mike
    Close up filtrers are measured in Diopters '+n where the bigger the number (n) the more powerful. IIRC diopters are reciprical focal lengths (in metres) but are effectively additive so a +2 & a +1 used together give +3. With the lens focused at infinity focus adding a diopter moves focus to 1/diopter.
    I'd assume your references are a 330mm with +3 diopter & a 200mm with +5 diopter.
    Update - No should have looked at the links first! I think it actualy is the focal length of the lens (in mm)
    1/0.33= +3 diopter, and 1/0.2= +5 diopter.

    Magnification with the diopter will depend on the focal length of the lens it's added to.
    Mag=total diopter * lens focal length in metres.
     
  3. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    842
    Feb 20, 2013
    Thanks. That and Wikipedia cleared up a little, but not all. Man, look at that formula!

    So, as I see it now (and I might be wrong), why would I buy an Olympus macro converter, or either of the other ones I mentioned when I could just buy this? Wonder why the Canon 500d is so expensive.
     
  4. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Mu-43 Top Veteran

    655
    Mar 21, 2013
    N Essex, UK
    Mike
    Because the Vivitar set are not Achromatic. It's not worth using lenses that will give such severe chromatic aberation to your images.
     
  5. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    842
    Feb 20, 2013
    Got it. I think I've got a few things narrowed down. I don't like the way the Raynox connects so I'll go with the Canon or Marumi I'd rather have it screw in to the 40-150's 58mm threads. And, if I want to use it on the 14-42 or the 45 all I'd have to do is get 37-58 or 46-58 step up rings for $5.

    Now, as to what diopter I need! Canon 500d is +2 and 250d is +4. the Marumis are +3 and +5. I plan to use this on the 45 and the 40-150 most. People online seem to say that +2 would be the best for longer lenses, is that the general rule?

    Finally, how bad ARE the one element cheap ones? I wish I had some to play with so I'd know which diopter number to buy. Maybe it WOULD be best to just buy this Vivitar set to play around with to see what like best.

    Oh, one final question I promise. So, if, let's say, I get set of cheap filters and I decide that I like the mix of closeup ability and working range when I use a +3 diopter. Whether I get the cheap-o or the good Marumi, the distance and focus will be the same, right?
     
  6. veereshai

    veereshai Mu-43 Top Veteran

    777
    May 12, 2011
    Arlington, VA
    What's the budget you're looking at? I got lucky once on ebay where I made an offer of $55 for BNIB Marumi DHG +5 and +3 achromats (55mm filter thread) and the seller accepted it. Try ebay, you might get a good deal on those.
     
  7. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Hmmm... now you probably all know that I'm not a fan of screw-on close-up filters, but putting that aside... have you considered simply getting a legacy macro lens instead? You could probably pick one up for near the cost of a cheap filter, and then you would have a real 1:1 macro and any adapters you use will only enhance it past 1:1. Macro lenses are also built to maximum sharpness, have very precise focus, and have a greater f-stop range for increasing DOF.
     
  8. TonyG

    TonyG Mu-43 Top Veteran

    585
    Oct 15, 2012
    Ontario Canada
    I bought a legacy Minolta macro lens from eBay and a cheap Chinese adapter the combinstion works great. The lens is all manual but for macro thats not an issue.

    Sent from my GT-S7560M using Mu-43 mobile app
     
  9. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    842
    Feb 20, 2013
    There's no budget per se, I could afford the 60mm macro, but I don't make decisions that cost me weeks pay not knowing how much I'll use it. So I want to try something cheaper first. And the problem with buying the Canon, or Marumi is that I don't know what diopter I'm gonna like.

    You're absolutely right. This is on my list right now, actually, even if I do get the macro lens for the 40-150. Do you have a suggestion or two around $100 or so? I found a couple nice K-mount ones but they're quite pricey ($200+ at which price I'd wait for the 60mm to go $399).
     
  10. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    Vin
    I agree with Ned. Don't waste time with these things because they won't give you results as nice as a proper macro lens would.

    My Minolta MD Macro 50mm f3.5 with 1:1 extension was about $165.
     
  11. edmsnap

    edmsnap Mu-43 Veteran

    430
    Dec 20, 2011
    Edmonton, Alberta
    I use a Canon nFD 50mm f/3.5 which can be had for $80-90 in like new condition. I picked up the 1:1 adapter not long back for $25. On ยต4/3 it's beautiful for macro or portrait and will far outshine a macro converter. The Adapted Lens Sample Image Archive has great examples.
     
  12. Sammyboy

    Sammyboy m43 Pro

    Oct 26, 2010
    Steeler Country
    Here's one using the m40-150 zoom and a Marumi DHG achromat 200 (+5) close-up lens. these achromat's are great when walking around with only your zoom lens.

     
  13. Sammyboy

    Sammyboy m43 Pro

    Oct 26, 2010
    Steeler Country
    Here's another, this time it's the m14-150 and the Marumi DHG achromat 200 (+5) close-up lens.

     
  14. TonyG

    TonyG Mu-43 Top Veteran

    585
    Oct 15, 2012
    Ontario Canada
    I paid 80 dollars for my macro and 18 dollars fir the adapter

    Sent from my GT-S7560M using Mu-43 mobile app
     
  15. veereshai

    veereshai Mu-43 Top Veteran

    777
    May 12, 2011
    Arlington, VA
    This is probably the 5th or 6th time I'm linking to NC's post but here goes:
    https://www.mu-43.com/f40/pen-e-pl1-cheap-thrills-4709/

    With your lens and you'll probably get good results. Yes, legacy macro lens is the best option but if you're not sure about doing macro photography and just want to see what that feels like you can't go wrong with a longer lens and an achromat diopter. Optically, with my limited knowledge about achromats, I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between Canon 500D/250D or Nikon 3T/4T/5T or Marumi DHG achromats.

    You can see comparisons of various legacy lenses and the zoom combo here:
    https://www.mu-43.com/f40/macro-best-focal-length-8756/#post76110

    See the dragonfly photo in the above link, which was made with a Marumi filter. Works well and is extremely sharp too. However, you should note that naturecloseups (NC) has impeccable technique and he almost always shoots on a tripod.
     
  16. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Hmmm... after getting a better feel for your budget, finances, and needs, I'm actually going to suggest a different route.

    How about the Zuiko Digital 35mm f/3.5 Macro and a 4/3 adapter (they have come down in price, with the cheapest mail-order version being in the area of $50 - ie, like Rainbow Imaging or Viltrox)?

    This lens is amazing for both its light stature and affordable price! Its sharpness and contrast will blow you away. For a true legacy macro I use the Kiron 105mm f/2.8 which has "legendary" status and sells for a few hundred dollars - twice what the Zuiko Digital 35mm Macro sells for used. Yet even the legendary Kiron can't produce images which compare to the contrast of the Zuiko Digital without using post-production to bring out its full potential. Thus, the Zuiko Digital is a much "safer bet" than going with any cheaper legacy lens.

    With the Zuiko 35mm/3.5 and 4/3 adapter, you'll be paying more than the cheapest legacy options but less than the cheapest native options. However, the quality of images you can produce will be every bit as good as the native options.

    The focus is very slow whether using Manual or AF, but this is to be expected of any traditional macro lens as they require a long focus throw to be so precise (my Kiron makes 2.5 full turns between macro and infinity. I don't know how many turns the Zuiko does since it's fly-by-wire). The new m.Zuiko 60mm/2.8 macro is an anomaly with its fast AF, which was not previously seen in a macro. That allows it to be used dual-purpose for both macro and general purpose, but that is not necessary for the macro part.

    The other thing you should be aware of is that 35mm is a rather wide angle for a macro lens. This requires you to get quite close to your subject, although it is a full 1:1 macro. This is actually both an advantage and a disadvantage. The disadvantage is the small working space, but the advantage is how much steadier you are at a wider angle. It makes hand-held macro much easier, as long as you don't block your own light.
     
  17. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    842
    Feb 20, 2013
    Thanks for taking the time to tell me all that. Unfortunately, although optically it sounds good, I wouldn't be too happy using the 35mm. It's too new to feel old and too old to feel new. Meaning, the 60mm is new and perfect. A legacy 50 or 100mm macro would be a lot fun, look awesome, and I'd enjoy using it because it's almost as old as me. Price is the same. If I'm up near $300 already with an adapted lens that doesn't even have a cool vintage feel, again, I'd opt for the 60mm (sorry!). Then again, if I picked up a junk lens for $8 at a garage sale I'd be using it all the time simple because the situation makes me happy. Yes, I'm weird, but reading some of your posts, I'm sure you understand! :tongue:

    Your Kiron 105mm f/2.8 looks nice. A bit large and a hefty price tag, however. Pentax M 50mm f4, if found cheap, might be good for me. I think I can get it for under $100. How would that look on non-macro photos vs the Pentax 50mm 1.7 I already have (I have both A & M)? Hmm. It'd suck to have a lens that only excels in macro. There's the 100mm f4 you can find for $100-150 too but at 200mm equiv it might be kind of hard to hold steady.

    On the cheap end, what do you think of this? CPC Phase 2 28/2.8 Macro:

    cpc_28f2.8_macro.

    Also, what about the 12-50's macro capabilities. I just learned about this lens, how cheap it is, saw that it's splash proof, and that it does macro! I'd probably get the funky zebra black & silver color one. It doesn't seem like too sharp of a lens, however, especially at the long end. For some reason that 28mm 2.8 is temping me. Under $50 is what's tempting me! :thumbup:
     
  18. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    842
    Feb 20, 2013
    Well, I bought the $20 set of mint used 58mm Hoya filters (+1, +2, and +4 diopter). To summarize, those of you (Ned) who told me not to buy filters were right.

    On the 40-150mm, regardless of what focal length I'm using the +2 just doesn't focus close enough so I used the +4 and only up at the 100-150mm range is that "macro" enough for me. I don't know how to correctly word this, but I used MF at around 90mm and the closest I could focus on the page resulted in about 2-3" of text taking up the horizontal length of the sensor. I could zoom to get a bit closer, but didn't because there wasn't enough light (plus the 40-150 will get soft at those FLs). (Note: with the 40-150 I was about a foot away from the subject.)

    I'm so glad I tried cheapies and not the $70 Canon, Marumi, Raynox, or native Olympus closeup lenses/filters because A) they are set at a non-variable diopter value (ie +2.5, +4) and B) they reduce the minimum AND maximum focusing distance. So, while that filter is on, at either 40 or 90mm, I'd say I only had about 1" of travel if I were to move the tripod. So, there aren't too many places you can stand to take the macro shot; and while the filter is on all you can do is macro.

    I also bought the 49-58mm step-up ring to try this on my Pentax 50mm f1.7. She focuses within 2 feet already plus it's a lot faster so it will probably be a better choice to use with these filters. I'd probably be able to get 8" away with the +4 but at 100mm equivalent that's still not close enough (my friend has the full-frame Nikon 105mm f2.8 macro and can practically focus on the polarizing filter! The Olympus 60mm f2.8 macro has a 7.5" minimum focus so I'll be able to play with what that offers without actually spending the $500.

    Finally, I bought the above CPC Phase 2 28mm f/2.8 Macro for $24 (OM mount). Not only will this let me play with my first macro lens, but it's a FL similar to the Pan 25mm f1.4 which I don't plan to buy because I'll have the 20mm f1.7. I'll play with this to see how I like it and for the price, probably keep it.

    So, all in all the $500 60mm f2.8 is still the lens to get. I spent a total of $47 for the filters, ring, and 28mm macro lens. And, when you're out and about with a small kit (say the PM2 with the 20mm or the 45mm), tossing a +4 diopter in the spare pocket is not going to weigh anyone down and will be a lot better than carrying another lens.

    So, if you want to do macro, as they say, buy a macro lens. But to test and see what you want, to have fun, and have filters to play with on occasion, the cheap filters are fine.
     
  19. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    Vin
    Grrr... why do people ask for advice then not take it. I see it all the time on here. :mad:

    Sorry for the rant.
     
  20. fsuscotphoto

    fsuscotphoto Mu-43 Top Veteran

    819
    Feb 15, 2013
    St. Cloud, FL
    Ron
    I have the Raynox 250 from before starting in MFT, I like it a lot and it's much sharper than the filters. Nothing beats a macro, but this is the next best thing.


    Sent from my iPad using Mu-43 mobile app