Hi, I'm new to this forum and, off course, I have a question. I own a Olympus E-PL1 and want to buy a macro lens, but don't know which one to get. - Panasonic micro 4/3's - Olympus 4/3's with adapter - Different brand???? The panasonic one is pretty pricey, compared to the olympus lens with the adapter. But maybe someone has another option?? Autofocus is not a must, so different brands with adapter shouldn't be a problem. Kind Regards, Andy
For true macro, you will not want to use AF anyway, this opens up a ton of options in the manual focus macro lens department, and to be honest most macro lenses are great. a few of note. Vivitar Series 1 105 2.5 (if you go to adapted lens forum, you can see some of my examples) Tamron SP 90 2.5 (make sure to get adapter) Canon FD 100 f4 Minolta md100 f4 and f3.5 Nikon 105 f4 etc etc so many good choices here.
If you want a AF lens, that is not to pricey, olympus 4/3 lens the 35mm 3.5 with the 4/3 adapter. New the kit is under 300, I got my off of ebay uses for 220 dollars total. Here are some example and a link to a true macro test I did with the setup. https://www.mu-43.com/f38/oly-35mm-3-5-macro-4-3-adapter-6547/
You'll probably get as many answers on this subject as there are forum members. That's a result of the flexibility of this system. What is comes down to is that you can't really go wrong with any macro lens. Generally they're all good, so pick a focal length first (based on your type of macro photography), then a lens manufacturer (based on your own criteria like quality, price, availability, etc.). Enjoy.
The 45/2.8 Panny is too rich for my blood. And Oly has a macro on their timeline for next year (hopefully a 90-100). In the interim I bought a Pentax 50/4 and a Nikon 105/4 and I find myself grabbing the Nikon 105 the most. The advantage of getting an adapted lens is if you are patient you can get a good deal on eBay and if you don't like it you can get your money back on a resale.
Hi, First of all thanks for the replies. Just ordered the panasonic 45-200 lens (needed a tele first). Now this will probably be a very silly question: Since I can zoom pretty far with this telelens, will it be able te make macro pictures? Or is there a very big difference with a real macro lens?
it will not be a great for macro. But you can add a 60 dollar option and it will make it a good macro lens. get a 52mm canon 500D close up lens. You will get almost 1:1 macro when zoom out all out to 200mm.
PS there are cheaper conversion lens, but they do not have as good quality as the higher price canon lens. Raynox is 1/2 price but performs no where as well
You can get dedicated macro lenses in any number of lengths. The real question is: what do you want to do macrophography of -- things near, things far, what kind of things? I tend to do things that are close, so a short lens works fine for what I like.
I have a macro converter that fits on my panasonic 20mm pancake (dad had that one for a Nikon lens and fitted) Big disadvantage is that macro converter on 20mm lens means that you need to be really close and the lens almost needs to touch the object. Quality isn't very great. Will test making macro's with the telelens. Otherwise I'm thinking of buying the Sigma macro for four thirds mount with the adapter.
yeah, if you take say bugs, the long ranges are more useful. That you do not spook the and cause them to say bye bye. Flowers and small things that do not go bye bye the short lenses work well.
While you are waiting to make your decision... Get a Raynox DCR-250. I've used it on several different brands and focal lengths of cameras because it is so easily adaptable (either with a step-up ring or the included snap-on adapter). I'm using it mainly for insects with the 20mm f/1.7 Panasonic pancake lens...and yes, you have to get very close with it:<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/isabel95/4995887651/" title="P8160460 A face only a mother could love.... by Isabel Cutler, on Flickr">"1054" height="816" alt="P8160460 A face only a mother could love...." /></a> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/isabel95/5068146775/" title="P9090964 Warmed up tobacco hornworm by Isabel Cutler, on Flickr">"790" height="907" alt="P9090964 Warmed up tobacco hornworm" /></a> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/isabel95/5068246471/" title="P9090998 Tobacco Hornworm Business End by Isabel Cutler, on Flickr">"658" height="878" alt="P9090998 Tobacco Hornworm Business End" /></a> I found out about the Raynox DCR250 when I bought it for my Panasonic FZ35. If you are interested in seeing how it works with several other cameras you may want to check out this set Isabel
The raynox is a 4 dioptic conversion lens, and it will cut you min focal distance to 250mm so you can allot of magnification. The raynox a decent conversion lens, if you want a little better quality. You can get the canon 250D, it works really well on shorter lenses. But since you have the 45-200, you will not need a 4 diopitc conversion lens. A 2 dioptic will let you have more working space, 500mm with the canon 500D close lens.
