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

O40-150 Macro

Discussion in 'Accessories' started by wjiang, Jan 18, 2014.

  1. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I've been wanting to play around with other macro options besides the macro mode on my O12-50 for a while. Mostly, I wanted something with a longer working distance for insects, and preferably portable (so no bellows). Didn't really want to carry another lens just for infrequent macro, so ruled out the otherwise excellent O60. Secretly, I also wanted a portable macro solution so I could replace the O12-50 down the line... :redface:

    Enter the O40-150! I very quickly found the subject isolation the telephoto gives for larger flowers to be excellent. Unfortunately, magnification ratio was lacking compared to the O12-50 (0.16x versus 0.37x). And so started the exercise of extending the magnification ratio of the 40-150...

    Firstly, I couldn't find any extension tubes that allowed aperture and AF control where I live, and high quality achromatic lenses from the likes of Marumi where hundreds of dollars mail order. I wasn't sure what dioptre was required so wasn't prepared to shell out without trying. A couple of months back, I found a bargain $15 item - Sigma Achromatic Macro Lens, +1.6 dioptre. Here it is mounted on the 40-150:
    sigma_achromat.JPG

    That was neat, but in practice it gained only just under 0.3x magnification, not enough to justify using it over the O12-50 just yet. Well, last week I found another bargain item for $50 - Sony AC Close-Up Lens VCL-M3358, +3.3 dioptre. Here it is stacked with the Sigma +1.6:
    sony_sigma_achromat.JPG

    Well, I'm pleased to report that I've now found my solution. Both the +3.3 by itself and the +3.3 +1.6 (+4.9) stacked work very well. Sharpness is decent enough (on par with the O12-50 at least), no chromatic aberrations that I can see, as expected from dual-element coated achromatic lenses, but contrast is a bit on the low side (the 40-150 was already a tad bit low anyway), the test shots below all have contrast boosted in post. The achievable magnification ratios are now pretty impressive, with +3.3 it's something like 0.5x and with +4.9 it's about 0.7x. In 35mm terms that's approximately 1x and 1.5x magnification!

    A test shot @f5.6, DoF is ridiculously thin:
    pen_macro_f5_6.JPG

    And @f22:
    pen_macro_f22.JPG

    Real world hand-held examples with +3.3, 1/500s, f/16, minimal cropping. I don't do flash so auto-ISO is going pretty high to allow enough shutter speed to keep up with these critters. DoF is ridiculously thin, and AF is only useful for fine tuning - initial focus must be obtained by moving the camera.

    P1180036.JPG

    P1180023.JPG

    P1180024.JPG

    And one with +4.9:
    P1180082.JPG

    Edit: Finally figured out the dioptre equations, they make the magnification figures make more sense. Not quite as high as I originally thought, but the m4/3 2x enlargement factor makes up for it somewhat.
     
    • Like Like x 10
  2. Dramaturg

    Dramaturg Mu-43 Top Veteran

    614
    Jun 7, 2013
    Ukraine
    Yevgen
    Great report! Don't you think you'd be able to abtain the same results with 12-50 though? I saw your other samples in 12-50 image thread and it seems pretty similar to what you've posted here.
     
  3. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Not quite, hence this whole exercise. Those were with major cropping, some halved. These are basically the whole frame, with minimal cropping for composition and straightening. Also, the working distance is a lot better for creepy crawlies - the 12-50 would be right on top of them!
     
  4. Dramaturg

    Dramaturg Mu-43 Top Veteran

    614
    Jun 7, 2013
    Ukraine
    Yevgen
    I see. So what are your general impressions about 12-50? I am thinking about getting one as they are as low as $200 used now. I want to get it due to three reasons - 1) 12mm, 2) macro mode and 3) weather sealing. Would you recommend it?
     
  5. Dave in Wales

    Dave in Wales Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 5, 2011
    West Wales
    Excellent, the beauty of supplementary lenses over extension tubes is, there is no light.
     
  6. fdifulco

    fdifulco Mu-43 Veteran

    251
    Nov 28, 2011
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Frank
    had your thought about the Raynox 250? i was never to sure on the glass quality of the screw in lens.
     
  7. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    To put some numbers on it, with +4.9 dioptres the 40-150 fits about 2cm horizontally across the frame at 15cm, whereas the 12-50 fits about 3.7cm at 5cm. The increased working distance means more natural light is able to hit the subject, whereas the 12-50 inevitably blocks the light at maximum magnification.

    I assume you meant no loss of light. Yes, that's something I forgot to mention - tubes and bellows both mean reduced light. At these magnification ratios it's really challenging to maintain adequate light. To follow those insects I was using ISO 1600 to get a safe 1/500s, f/16 exposure. As I mentioned though, having a large working distance means I can actually still use natural light rather than being forced use flash.

    They aren't cheap, B&H has them for $75 USD so would cost me over $100 NZD to ship to NZ. From what I've seen, the Raynox glass is a decent example of a dual-element achromatic lens. Dave would have a much better idea as he's used both the DCR-150 as well as the DCR-250. The more expensive Marumi series has much better DHG coatings (much better than the bargain used items I found), but like I said I didn't want to fork out on expensive stuff until I understood dioptres, working distance, and AF/MF issues. My main beef with the Raynox lenses is that they are pretty small (only 52mm or something), you get adaptors but they might still vignette a bit on a 58mm lens. Also, I'd suggest the DCR-150 initially as the DCR-250 is way too much to start out with; I used +3.3 for the bees as I found +4.9 way too hard.

    Part of my motivation for looking at alternative macro options was that I wasn't entirely satisfied with the 12-50. The main thing is that I'm often needing something faster in the 12-20 focal range for indoors, while keeping weather sealing and wide to short tele zoom for travel convenience. The 12-35 seems to fit the bill (the 12-40 is a bit too hefty and large for my liking), but doesn't do macro. As for the 12-50 - for macro, weather sealing, and having a 12 available, it's great. Its sharpness and C/A characteristics are so so, but I've never been bugged by that too much. I limit it to wide angles if I can afford to change lenses though (PL25 and O45 IQ is way better).
     
  8. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I use a Raynox 250 and it's very good, esp on the 75/1.8. The apparently smaller diameter of the Raynox compared to the lens doesn't lead to vignetting. It's fine on the 100-300 too.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Hmm good to know. I'm impressed you can work with such high dioptres!
     
  10. chonbhoy

    chonbhoy Mu-43 Veteran

    430
    Apr 23, 2013
    Scottish Highlands
    Neat solution, thanks for posting this.
    How much working distance do you get at 3.3 and 4.9?
     
  11. chonbhoy

    chonbhoy Mu-43 Veteran

    430
    Apr 23, 2013
    Scottish Highlands
    Is it worth getting a Marumi 200 (+5 Dioptre) for the 12-40 or is there hardly any gains on shorter zooms? I read that the 12-40 has x0.6 magnification but i guess that's only at 12mm, i've been trying to find out via google but think you guys will know the answer. Only reason i'm thinking about it is if i'm going to get one I thought i might as well get the biggest size Dioptre and use step down rings for the 40-150.
     
  12. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    I think a +5 diopter would be a good choice for the 12-40. You'll get your highest magnification at 40mm. I use the Marumi +3 on my Panasonic 14-45 and get decent close-up results. I've planned to get the +5 but haven't gotten around to it yet as I use the +3 on my 45-200 for higher magnifications.

    The Marumi achromats are good enough that I leave in my bag instead of one of the macro lenses that I always carried "just in case".

    Fred
     
  13. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    With +4.9 dioptres the 40-150 fits about 2cm horizontally across the frame at 15cm working distance, with +3.3 it fits about 3cm horizontally across the frame at 20cm working distance.
     
  14. vm666

    vm666 Mu-43 Regular

    132
    Jan 19, 2013
    Paris
    Actually, the depth of field depends upon two parameters only: the aperture, and the magnification ratio.
    You can forget this formula for general photography, but in macro-photography, for a given magnification ratio (e.g. 1:2), you will have the same DoF with any lens if you keep the same aperture.

    Getting a very high magnification ratio is easier with a wide angle. However, for a same ratio, you have to be closer to the subject with a WA than with a tele. To shoot insects in the wild, the 40-150 is a good choice (the 60 mm would be too)
     
  15. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I did not mean DoF when talking about subject isolation :confused: the effect in my case is caused by telephoto compression enlarging what apparent OOF areas there are and making them seem less distinct.
     
  16. chonbhoy

    chonbhoy Mu-43 Veteran

    430
    Apr 23, 2013
    Scottish Highlands
    So approximately with 4.9 you achieve slightly better than 1:1 for a working distance of 15cm, great I'd like try it now and see how much a difference 5cm makes compared to the working distance of the 60 which is 10cm. Question...should i get a bigger diameter diopter to try it with some old legacy telephoto zooms and the 12-40 instead of getting the 58mm for the 40-150?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  17. chonbhoy

    chonbhoy Mu-43 Veteran

    430
    Apr 23, 2013
    Scottish Highlands
    Thanks fredlong I missed your post the first time, disregard my last post, I dunno about getting a 77mm (my largest lens thread on a 70-210) just get a 62mm or forget that because I'd be better using one on the 40-150 which as a 58mm ??? If they are all equally or close enough good for using with a diopter then I guess I can go down the step down route but I hate not using hoods ;)


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  18. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    @chonboy
    I'd go for the +5 sized to fit the 12-40. Use a stepping ring if you want to use it on the 40-150. I'd rather have the simplest solution on the best lens.

    A dedicated legacy macro lens might be a better choice for higher magnification than what you'll get with 12-40 and +5.

    Fred
     
  19. chonbhoy

    chonbhoy Mu-43 Veteran

    430
    Apr 23, 2013
    Scottish Highlands
    Your right keep it simple, I'll do that, I've got some reversing rings ordered all ready so I can play around with different set-ups. You've also reminded me of a question I forgot to ask... With a legacy macro does the sensor crop factor change a 1:1 reproduction to a 2:1 reproduction macro or pretty close to it?
    There was a Tokina 150 or 180 f3.5 I was looking at out of interest in the long macros but I really need to play with a few combinations of ideas first. I've ruled out extension tubes for now because of the reduction in working distance and loss of light.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  20. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    1:1 is still 1:1. Close focusing distance is still the same. You can fill the frame of a 4/3 sensor at 1:2 with same object that would fill a 35 mm frame at 1:1.

    Some people, including Olympus marketing folks, talk about an equivalent magnification. 1:1 is the same magnification no matter what the sensor size is. However, if you want to fill the frame with a bee, you can do it at lower magnification than on a larger sensor.

    Fred