1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

macro with 12-35 f2.8

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by yehuda, Jul 25, 2013.

  1. yehuda

    yehuda Mu-43 Veteran

    200
    Mar 14, 2013
    Hi.

    I've worked in the past with dedicated macro lenses, using extension tubes with and without AF coupling and with reverse mounting a lens.

    I am trying to limit my lens arsenal when travelling and have gone down to the 12-35 2.8 and the rokinon 7.5mm fisheye.
    I don't care much for tele shots or for primes (sold the 20 1.7 and 25 1.4, have the 45 1.8 but rarely use it).

    What I do miss is getting extreme close ups. Maybe not true macro but at least 1:3 - 1:2 magnification ratio.

    Is there any attachment lens that works well with the 12-35 2.8?

    Thanks!
     
  2. slothead

    slothead Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 14, 2012
    Frederick, MD
    Interesting question Yehuda. I've got the 12-35 and the Meike auto extension tubes, but I have not tried them together. I may do that today and see what results.
     
  3. yehuda

    yehuda Mu-43 Veteran

    200
    Mar 14, 2013
    I seem to recall people saying that the optical design in the 12-35 is such that when using it with extension tubes the lens cannot achieve proper focus even in manual focus mode.

    Thanks for trying, but I'm looking for a solution that doesn't require unmounting the lens from the camera.
    Only attaching a close up lens etc.
    Like the Raynox dcr-150

    Cheers,
    Yehuda
     
  4. rklepper

    rklepper Mu-43 Top Veteran

    733
    Dec 19, 2012
    Iowa, USA
    Robert
    I tried the 12-35 with my extension tubes and I think, if I recall correctly, it moved the focal point inside the lens. Haha. Not useful at all. Works fine with the 35-100 though.
     
  5. yehuda

    yehuda Mu-43 Veteran

    200
    Mar 14, 2013
    Yup. Now that you mention it I remember that's what people said - it becomes impossible to focus.
    Thanks for sharing this :)
     
  6. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul Mu-43 Top Veteran

    729
    Aug 15, 2011
    Aberdeen Scotland
    The 12-35 has very good resolution, you can do close ups by shooting at 35mm as close as you can get then post cropping, maybe not an ideal solution but still gives excellent results.
    Here's a couple of examples. Taken with G5 and 12-35, hand held.

    Paul

    As shot
    P1010214.

    Post cropped
    P1010214-2.

    Original
    P1010399.

    Post crop
    P1010399-2.
     
  7. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I'll just add that the Raynox close-up 'diopter' doesn't work well on the 12-35 either - there is significant vignetting.
     
  8. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    My limited close-up experience with this lens has not been great - lots of distortion and not terribly sharp. Kiwi Paul probably has better technique than I do. :)
     
  9. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Within its own focusing limits, I think it works very well - I've not experienced any loss of sharpness or distortion near the min focus distance.
     
  10. drtom

    drtom New to Mu-43

    2
    Jul 26, 2013
    Boulder, CO, USA
    I agree with pdk42

    I have had good results with the 12-35 at 35.
    Tom
     
  11. yehuda

    yehuda Mu-43 Veteran

    200
    Mar 14, 2013
    I'm a bit dissapointed by this bit of news.
    What was the exact raynox model you used?
    Can you kindly upload a typical example showing this vignetting?
    How did using the raynox affect the distance between the edge of the lens to the subject?
    I just want to know it isn't 'so-close-it-only-works-in-lab-conditions'
    :)

    Thanks to all the other posters as well. Your knowledge and sharing of is well appreciated!
     
  12. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    See images below, taken with a Raynox DCR 250:

    General scene:
    http://www.famillekaye.com/EM593900_1280.jpg

    With Raynox at 12mm
    http://www.famillekaye.com/EM593898_1280.jpg

    With Raynox at 35mm
    http://www.famillekaye.com/EM593899_1280.jpg

    The Raynox works very well with my 75mm and 100-300mm lenses.

    Hope this helps!
     
  13. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    Marumi makes +3 and +5 achromatic diopters in different filter thread sizes. Getting one to fit will eliminate the vignetting with the Raynox diopters.

    I've been using the +3 on the Panasonic 14-45 and 45-200 zooms with good results. I'd expect better results on the 12-35

    Fred

    On the 14-45 at 14mm
    ImageUploadedByMu-431375122313.652790.

    On the 45-200
    ImageUploadedByMu-431375122598.749558.
     
  14. yehuda

    yehuda Mu-43 Veteran

    200
    Mar 14, 2013

    Nice examples and thanks for the info!

    Does using the marumi +3 greatly diminish the working distance between the lens and the subject?
    For example - when using the 14-45 @45mm how far can you be from the subject while still getting good magnification?

    I hope it's not that close that you almost touch the subject with the lens.

    Is there any reason you chose the marumi +3 instead of the +5?
     
  15. Danny_SWE

    Danny_SWE Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 30, 2013
    Sweden (Gothenburg)
    cheap version is this macro add-on lens, the small one to the right:

    9121219862_b13d698a2f_z.
    Macro / Wide Converter by Zarako, on Flickr

    can't find good examples but it works really ok, a little soft in the corners but good close focus distance. This is a 1mm tick:

    9053601610_f18b51981c.
    Tick by Zarako, on Flickr
     
  16. yehuda

    yehuda Mu-43 Veteran

    200
    Mar 14, 2013
    I saw your photo stream on flickr. Great stuff!

    Back to the original topic - that macro converter looks like one of those generic ebay models. I buy a lot of stuff from ebay but am skeptic about those wide angle or macro adapters. You say it works fine. Do you have a link to the exact product on ebay?

    Thanks again,

    Yehuda
     
  17. Danny_SWE

    Danny_SWE Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 30, 2013
    Sweden (Gothenburg)
    yes, read here, the macro is ok but the WA is crap :)
     
  18. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    The highest magnification is at 45mm. That puts the subject about 4-5 inches in front of the lens. At. 14mm the working distance is shorter and the magnification is lower. I think of the zoom as a variable magnification control.

    I chose the +3 for two reasons. First, I expected to (and I do) use it with the 45-200 more often. The longer focal lengths yield higher magnification and I didn't want to push in to the range where I'd need a tripod. I already have macro lenses, bellows and extension tubes for that kind of work. Second, I thought that the lower magnification would give less of the bad side effects of using a diopter. The soft edges I can live with for most things, but I was concerned more about the heavy chromatic aberrations that are often seen with single element diopters.

    The chromatic aberration has rarely been an issue and it usually only crops up with the lens wide open. Using a lens hood definitely helps here. I've never looked a picture I've taken with the Marumi and said "Aww, if only the edges were sharp!"

    I've always expected to get the +5, I've just never gotten around to it. If I only used the 14-45 I probably would have gotten the +5 first.

    At Amazon they're about $84. I think that's a very good value and I highly recommend giving one a try.

    http://www.amazon.com/Marumi-Macro-Achromat-Achromatic-Filter/dp/B003DIHKCM/ref=pd_bxgy_p_text_y

    http://www.amazon.com/Marumi-Macro-Achromat-Achromatic-Filter/dp/B003VZLEGK/ref=pd_sim_sbs_p_1

    Fred
     
  19. yehuda

    yehuda Mu-43 Veteran

    200
    Mar 14, 2013
    I thank all the repliers! You've been very helpful!

    For now I've decided to go with a 5$ close up filter from eBay, just for the fun of it.

    When I get it I'll take some sample images with and without the filter and post my findings here.

    Have a nice day all,

    Yehuda