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

[Dave in 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

 

[Art]

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

Does it AF?

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

Panasonic Leica 45mm f/2.8 Macro
Ligth loss at 1:1....2 stops.

What do you mean by 'light loss'?

 

[Luckypenguin]

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.

 

[994]

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?

 

[Bizzarrini]

...I prefer flexibility and AF, though.

I've been using a Raynox 250 with my Olympus 40-150mm, and the AF works just fine with that combo...

 

[~tc~]

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.

Linky?

This is the first I've heard of this phenomenon.

 

[Luckypenguin]

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!).

 

[garfield_cz]

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.

 

[994]

I've been using a Raynox 250 with my Olympus 40-150mm, and the AF works just fine with that combo...

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.

 

[994]

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.

 

[Dave in 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

 

[veereshai]

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.

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

 

[994]

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

 

[veereshai]

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

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.

 

[elandel]

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.

 

[~tc~]

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.

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.

 

[veereshai]

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.

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.

 

[Dave in Wales]

Does it AF?

It does AF but macro and AF don't go together, better with MF.

D in W

 

[~tc~]

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.