Macro Lens Thoughts

They're all fine contenders. The Canon and the Nikon versions are quite nice from what I've seen. I use a Tokina 90/2.5 in FD mount occasionally, and it's superb, but also more pricey than $100. Generally I think it's difficult to find a bad macro lens out there, so pick one and go with it.

 

Why not go for the Fourthird lenses at least you have AF coupled with the MMF 1 or 2 adapter.

The Fourthird lenses offers the ZD 35 and 50 while the Sigma offers the 14-50/2.8, 105 and 150.

NOTE, I just saw you are using the GF1. I think Panny may not offer AF on those lenses.

 

They don't.

That said, when using as a macro lens, I'm not convinced that AF necessarily helps. You want the focus where you want it.

 

Thanks deirdre. I was looking for that list.
BTW, Is there such a list for the Olympus Pens?

 

There is, but it's less clear to me what is supported focus-wise vs. what is not.

However, there are six Olympus 4/3 lenses on the Olympus chart that don't have footnotes and are listed as AF-capable on the Panasonic chart, so my guess on the meaning is that they are supported the exact same way they are on the Panasonic bodies: only six of the Olympus 4/3 lenses support AF on m4/3. I'm guessing the same three (of four) Panasonic lenses support AF on Olympus bodies, though.

In short, the following 4/3 lenses are available with autofocus:


Panasonic L-RS014050 14-50mm
L-RS014150 14-150mm
L-X025 25mm

Olympus ZUIKO DIGITAL 25mm F2.8
ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6
ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 14-42mm F3.5-5.6
ZUIKO DIGITAL 14-54mm F2.8-3.5II
ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 40-150mm F4.0-5.6
ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 70-300mm F4.0-5.6

 

I agree. I think it is nice to have for non-macro shots you may take with the lens, but for macro AF is nearly useless.

BTW, I am also looking for a good legacy macro that won't be too pricey. I was looking at the 55mm(? I think) konica because I already have the adapter, but I am not sold. I am thinking something closer to 100mm. I am open to suggestions.

 

I think manual is better for macro. I have the Micro-Nikkor 55 2.8 it cost about $125 and I liked it better then the Pan/Leica 45 macro which I have since sold. The Micro-Nikkor 55 2.8 has very nice bokeh.

 

I have used both 55mm and 105mm macro lenses and for insects I find that the 105mm focal length is the best, it can enable you to get suitably framed photographs at a range outside that at which the insect might take flight.

For plants it could be argued that the 55mm focal length is better, but the 105mm is certainly usable for that purpose as well.

But then you might end up with the choice of both focal lengths :smile:

Barrie

 

Hi,

I own the 55/2.8, 105/2.8 and the 200/4 Micro-Nikkors
For insects, I prefer the 200 over the 105 because it allows you to stay at safe distance from the subject and because the IF is really fast and buttersmooth. Of course, tripod is mandatory.

All these lenses are MF but, if you're a bit patient, you can find them at reasonable prices @ evilbay and other sources (maybe less the 200 ?)

C U
Rafael

 

I can vouch for the Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5, in any shape or form. It's fantastic on my Panasonic G1 and can be found for under € 50 with a bit of looking around.

 

How about macro function in legacy zooms? They are affordable and can hold their own on general photography... ;-)

Here's one general macro shoot with my budget zoom...uncropped and no photoshop touch-ups....the lotus lily in my aunty's garden is less than 2 inch across...



I just saw a similar lens (item 370442928065) on ebay going for USD49 including international shipping.. ;-)

I also use the 420mm FOV (135 equivalent) for fun shooting in bird parks and distance street shoot... ;-)

 

It's definitely an option, although not strictly speaking a true macro capability. I use the macro function on my Vivitar S1 70-120 lens fairly often with good results. I think on that lens I get 1:2.5 magnification, which for a zoom lens is very good.