Olympus: “We know our fans want to have a 100mm macro lens”

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
576
Location
Finland
f/2.8 should give at least similar high sharpness stopped down a little as the 60mm. Personally I'd rather get a little better small aperture sharpness than that from a slower lens (along with a smaller lens), but for focus stacking and tele-shooting purposes they likely opt for fastness.

Laowa will soon release 50mm 2:1 magnification macro lens for M43, so I'd rather they make the Pro qualities from something like that rather than a big & fast lens, but likely not. The 75mm f/1.8 gives some hope for size being okay though.
 
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
6,224
Location
Knoxville, TN
Here's the Sigma 105 2.8 on an E-M5ii:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

getoutandshoot

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
146
Location
SF Bay area, CA
Real Name
Dave
Posts by Lcrunyon and piggsy above have persuaded me to change my mind. All things considered, it's probably better that the new macro lens has a maximum aperture of f/2.8 or even f/2.0, even if those apertures are not used as often for macro work. First of all, I probably wrongly assumed that it was not possible or practical to do macro focus bracketing/stacking with a 100mm lens at f/2.8.... and while I'm sure it does start to be a huge number of frames you're stacking (depending on how close and how big your subject is), I suppose people do it. But secondly, as piggsy said, I need to remember that in micro-4/3, diffraction affects image quality more and sooner as you stop down, compared to larger formats. So in order to try to allow more "diffraction free" aperture choices, in general it makes sense for all micro-4/3 lenses to have large maximum apertures. And there is a lot to be said for making a longer macro lens more flexible and useful as a general telephoto lens, and that means giving it a larger maximum aperture and adding the size/complexity/cost to make it perform equally well wide open and also stopped down. So, not than anyone in the world cares what I think, :confused: but I will amend my earlier statement to, "I would prefer f/4 f/2.8, but I won't be surprised or that disappointed if it is f/2.8 f/2.0."

Dave
 
Last edited:

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,410
Location
New England
And there is a lot to be said for making a macro lens more flexible and useful as a general telephoto lens
Right. In the old 4/3rds days, when Olympus didn't make many primes and nothing faster than 2.0, the 50/2 macro lens was one of the gems of the line up. I think it was a 1:2 macro, so not a 1:1 however it was marketed as both a macro and a portrait lens (hence the f2) and was in fact very popular for both those things so probably a large number of 50/2 owners didn't even shoot one or the other but they all benefited from this lens. It's IQ quality was excellent.
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
576
Location
Finland
Posts by Lcrunyon and piggsy above have persuaded me to change my mind. All things considered, it's probably better that the new macro lens has a maximum aperture of f/2.8 or even f/2.0, even if those apertures are not used as often for macro work. First of all, I probably wrongly assumed that it was not possible or practical to do macro focus bracketing/stacking with a 100mm lens at f/2.8.... and while I'm sure it does start to be a huge number of frames you're stacking (depending on how close and how big your subject is), I suppose people do it. But secondly, as piggsy said, I need to remember that in micro-4/3, diffraction affects image quality more and sooner as you stop down, compared to larger formats. So in order to try to allow more "diffraction free" aperture choices, in general it makes sense for all micro-4/3 lenses to have large maximum apertures. And there is a lot to be said for making a longer macro lens more flexible and useful as a general telephoto lens, and that means giving it a larger maximum aperture and adding the size/complexity/cost to make it perform equally well wide open and also stopped down. So, not than anyone in the world cares what I think, :confused: but I will amend my earlier statement to, "I would prefer f/4 f/2.8, but I won't be surprised or that disappointed if it is f/2.8 f/2.0."

Dave
Olympus 30mm f/3.5 is a little better at smaller apertures than 60mm f/2.8 (although this is sharper at f/5.6), so making it f/2.0 could make it worse at that end. Which is in my opinion the most important area in macro photography as I haven't, at least yet, focus stacked.

But yeah, it seems f/2.8 might be acceptable size. I'm fine with that.
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
576
Location
Finland
I realized if this is released some day, it will have IS as a Pro lens. Should be interesting to see what kind of results Olympus IBIS+IS will get in macro photography. Without a flash even one stop advantage will be great. And is it so that lens stabilization is more effective than IBIS with tele-lenses? I think my PEN-F has Dual IS so I could try it even without buying a new camera.
 

jimr.pdx

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
565
Location
~1hr north of Portland OR
Real Name
Jim R
Another curious old option is the Sigma 90/2.8 shown here in its quantaray persona. It's a native 1:2 closeup but (usually) comes with a 1:1 screw on adapter. I haven't played much with it on :mu43: bodies but look forward to a few attempts soon. I'm more of a 1:2 guy anyway and like the compactness of it, but my copy appears to have been new-in-box and has the closeup 'filter'.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Attachments

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom