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

Panasonic Leica 45mm f/2.8 Macro vs 200mm + Raynox 150 some facts.

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Dave in Wales, Nov 21, 2011.

  1. Dave in Wales

    Dave in Wales Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 5, 2011
    West Wales
    Panasonic Leica 45mm f/2.8 Macro
    Cost..£575
    Maximum magnification 1:1
    Ligth loss at 1:1....2 stops.
    Working distance at 1:1, front element to subject....60mm.
    IQ....Superb, as to be expected.

    If one has a 45-200mm or similar, which I have, then, with the lens set at 200mm....

    Raynox 150
    Cost...£45
    Ligh loss at 1:1...Nil, no light loss with supplementary lenses.
    Working distance at approx 1:1, front element to subject....155mm.
    IQ....Excellent, more than adaquate for my needs.

    IMVHO It's a no-brainer, the 45-200 + Raynox 150 wins handsdown.

    For me it was the working distance that decided it....60mm against 155mm and with no light loss.

    D in W
     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Art

    Art Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2011
    San Francisco, CA
    Does it AF?
     
  3. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    What do you mean by 'light loss'?
     
  4. The exact reason escapes me now, but as a macro lens approaches it's minimum focusing distance and 1:1 magnification, it typically loses around two stops of light transmission. I think in unit-focusing macro lenses where the entire lens group is moved away from the focal plane, the size of the image circle is increased, which means the light intensity is less for a given area. An internally focusing lens like the PL45 uses a different method of focusing but I think the effect is similar.
     
  5. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    I'd like to see side-by-side comparisons. As I remember the 45-200 (which I haven't had in over a year), I wasn't impressed with contrast, as I am with the 45. Also, for me personally, I don't like very much taking on/off close focus lenses, but in terms of cost and working distance, the info is clear.

    Any sample shots?
     
  6. Bizzarrini

    Bizzarrini Mu-43 Regular

    76
    Apr 26, 2011
    The Netherlands
    I've been using a Raynox 250 with my Olympus 40-150mm, and the AF works just fine with that combo...
     
  7. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Linky?

    This is the first I've heard of this phenomenon.
     
  8. You can find a lot of sources that mention it from a google search for "macro lens light loss" or somesuch, but few that go into any theory.

    The only one I've found that had a good diagram was dummies.com (sorry!).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. garfield_cz

    garfield_cz Mu-43 Veteran

    218
    Jul 9, 2011
    Czech Republic
    Pavel
    There is one more issue with extension tubes and macro conversion lens which needs to be mentioned. On dedicated macro lens e.g. Leica Macro-Elmarit 45/2.8 you are able to focus from 6cm (1:1) to infinity, but on non macro lens with extension tube focusing distance is very thin. In other words you are able to get 1:1 magnification but focusing is e.g. from 12 to 13cm and you must move either camera or subject to get it focused.
     
  10. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    Sorry, when I first wrote that, I was thinking legacy lens. I went back and realized it was the 45-200, but forgot to edit my post.
     
  11. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    I had never heard of this, but it's right there in the lens manual, page 13. It's a sliding scale. So, at focus from .47m to infinity, it's f/2.8. At .47m for 1/8 macro, it's f3.2. For 1/3 magnification at .23m focus distance, it's f4.0 (i.e. when stopped wide open, it's still a full stop slower). For 1/2 macro, with focus distance of .19m, it's effectively f4.5 and for 1/1 magnification with a focus distance of .15m, it's effectively f5.6.

    Learn something new every day!

    Still, there's a benefit to actually having AF during the macro work, rather than having to move the lens in/out, as garfield_cz pointed out.
     
  12. Dave in Wales

    Dave in Wales Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 5, 2011
    West Wales
    My computer crashed yesterday, hard drive died.
    I'm using my wife's laptop, I hate the ******* things but at least it's working.

    Alas the 45mm Macro has gone back, but I can still post shots taken with the 45-200/Raynox at various focal lengths.

    I have compiled a chart giving data eg. focal length, area, magnification and working diatance.

    My computer should be fixed by Thursday, so perhaps by the weekend I should have something.

    Watch this pace.

    D in W
     
  13. veereshai

    veereshai Mu-43 Top Veteran

    777
    May 12, 2011
    Arlington, VA
    At high magnification, having AF is as good as not having AF. MF is the only way to go for real "macro" work. Real macro would be a magnification of 1:1 or higher, anything less is just a close-up.

    Almost all macro lenses use the concept of extension tubes internally to get the high magnification. So, the concept of light loss when magnification goes up is similar to using ETs with a regular lens.

    Having said that, there are some downsides to using Raynox 250. I am not sure if naturecloseups has written this post here, but here's his take on the Raynox:
    http://www.jjmehta.com/forum/index.php?topic=2121.msg92981#msg92981
    http://www.jjmehta.com/forum/index.php?topic=2121.msg93040#msg93040
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    Good response. Thanks. I mainly do close ups more than true macro, so maybe that's why I don't notice these things.
     
  15. veereshai

    veereshai Mu-43 Top Veteran

    777
    May 12, 2011
    Arlington, VA
    So do I. 1:1 is too high a magnification for me. And, with the 2x crop factor of our micro four third cameras, the effective magnification is 2:1. In fact, I had not noticed the light loss/effective aperture while using my Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro on a Canon body. But, a friend of mine said that his Nikon camera reads f5.6 at 1:1 magnification and that's when I started looking for answers. I am yet to get John Shaw's Closeups in nature which explains everything in detail.
     
  16. elandel

    elandel Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 16, 2010
    Milan, Italy
    I use and still use the Raynox DCR-250 on my 70-300 with the K5, and now with the m4/3 cameras and I'm very pleased with the results.

    Go to the Raynox Club thread on Pentaxforums to see some results.
     
  17. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Not true. 1:1 is 1:1 regardless of crop factor. The FOV will change (less of the flower/bee/whatever in the frame), but it will still be represented as 1mm on the subject covers 1mm of the sensor.
     
  18. veereshai

    veereshai Mu-43 Top Veteran

    777
    May 12, 2011
    Arlington, VA
    I agree and that's why I said "effective" magnification :). And you're right, magnification is same irrespective of the crop factor and it was wrong on my part to suggest 2:1.
     
  19. Dave in Wales

    Dave in Wales Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 5, 2011
    West Wales
    It does AF but macro and AF don't go together, better with MF.

    D in W
     
  20. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Perhaps for "true" macro, but for "close focus" shots (flowers, etc), AF can be quite handy, especially if you have a model without an articulating screen.

    Close focus distance of all my other native lenses (except the fisheye) is not so great.