Updated Olympus lens road map - 8-25mm f4, finally a pro macro, ... does it make you want to stick with Olympus?

[PakkyT]

I didn't even know 4:1 equivalent magnification is possible.

Ya I was going to ask does anyone know what the tradeoffs are when you make a lens higher magnification. Clearly there must be serious tradeoffs or everyone would just mag 2x+ macro lenses. Since they don't, why not?

I am going to speculate that this lens has an actual optical magnification of 1x and the "2x" is Oly making an equivalent comparison.

Edited to update: This page...
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm
does a great job of explaining how to achieve larger magnifications and the drawbacks to doing so. Chief among the drawbacks is an effectively roughly 2-stops slower at 1:1 and of course continues to slow down as you increase magnification. So for example, if the 100/2.8 macro is shot at 1:1 you are really shooting at f/5.6.

 

[getoutnshoot]

I'm glad to read the rumored max aperture on the 100 macro will be f/2.8. An f/2.8 lens will hopefully be more compact and less expensive than f/2 or f/1.x... And although true 2:1 magnification would be amazing, I'd be more than happy with 1:1.

Finally some big news! I am the one who originally started this thread 20 pages and many months ago. I never imagined the thread would last so long. It has been a long "dry spell" for micro 4/3 and Olympus in particular. I'm hoping the brand survives and they follow thru with the 8-25 f/4 lens too. Both of these lenses would be very interesting and tempting to me.


Dave

 

[roboroto]

Ya I was going to ask does anyone know what the tradeoffs are when you make a lens higher magnification. Clearly there must be serious tradeoffs or everyone would just mag 2x+ macro lenses. Since they don't, why not?

I am going to speculate that this lens has an actual optical magnification of 1x and the "2x" is Oly making an equivalent comparison.

Edited to update: This page...
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm
does a great job of explaining how to achieve larger magnifications and the drawbacks to doing so. Chief among the drawbacks is an effectively roughly 2-stops slower at 1:1 and of course continues to slow down as you increase magnification. So for example, if the 100/2.8 macro is shot at 1:1 you are really shooting at f/5.6.

FWIW the 60mm f/2.8 is not marketed as 2x and only says 1x (35mm equivalent 2x):
https://www.getolympus.com/us/en/m-zuiko-digital-ed-60mm-f2-8-macro.html

Screenshot of website above for the older 60mm f/2.8 macro lens:

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

So the 100mm might really be 2x. For some other lenses I think sometimes they do say the "35mm equivalent" number to look better.


As noted by RS86 earlier, Laowa already has a 50mm f/2.8 2x Ultra Macro lens for $400. Manual focus only, but you get electrical contacts (lens communication with camera for aperture, EXIF, focus peaking, etc.):
https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-50mm-f-2-8-2x-ultra-macro-apo/

 

[evilmeta]

Well, I’m excited. Another thing to spend my money on and get in trouble with my wife for buying. She’s wise to my tactic of pretending it’s ‘one of my existing lenses now’, because the storage bag gets bigger and bigger.

 

[bargainguy]

Supposedly the new 100/2.8 macro is 2:1:

https://www.43rumors.com/ft4-m-zuiko-digital-ed-100mm-f2-8-is-pro-21-to-be-announced-soon/

 

[RS86]

Supposedly the new 100/2.8 macro is 2:1:

https://www.43rumors.com/ft4-m-zuiko-digital-ed-100mm-f2-8-is-pro-21-to-be-announced-soon/

Umm, if you had checked the earlier page, it would have been obvious that this link is why we discussed it.

 

[Holoholo55]

FWIW the 60mm f/2.8 is not marketed as 2x and only says 1x (35mm equivalent 2x):
https://www.getolympus.com/us/en/m-zuiko-digital-ed-60mm-f2-8-macro.html

Screenshot of website above for the older 60mm f/2.8 macro lens:
View attachment 884331

So the 100mm might really be 2x. For some other lenses I think sometimes they do say the "35mm equivalent" number to look better.


As noted by RS86 earlier, Laowa already has a 50mm f/2.8 2x Ultra Macro lens for $400. Manual focus only, but you get electrical contacts (lens communication with camera for aperture, EXIF, focus peaking, etc.):
https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-50mm-f-2-8-2x-ultra-macro-apo/

I've seen that written for the specs of M43 lenses for years. The doubling of the M43 max magnification for the 35mm equivalent max image magnification. Why is that? I know about the 2x eFOV, but where does this 2x max magnification factor come from? I've ignored that spec for years, but now that everybody's making hay of it for the not-yet-announced 100 macro, can someone explain this?

 

[doady]

1:1 magnification for FF means a camera can fill the frame with a 36x24mm object in focus. For 4/3 and m4/3, it would be something like 17x13mm.

My C-7070 was able to fill the frame with a 28x21mm object at the closest focusing distance, so that's around 0.26:1 magnification, equivalent to 1.25:1 magnifcation for FF.

Like with focal length, you need to consider the sensor size when comparing different formats. I liked shooting at 5.7mm focal length with my C-7070, but "5.7mm" wouldn't have helped me when shopping for my first m4/3 lens. Thinking about the effective focal length of 27mm was more useful. Likewise, thinking more about the 1.25:1 effective magnification would give me better idea of what the 100mm F2.8 might be capable of.

 

[getoutnshoot]

Ya I was going to ask does anyone know what the tradeoffs are when you make a lens higher magnification. Clearly there must be serious tradeoffs or everyone would just mag 2x+ macro lenses. Since they don't, why not?

I wonder about this too. Can someone out there educate me on why more macro lenses are not capable of magnification beyond 1:1 ? I've seen quite a few that don't even get to 1:1 and yet they are still called "macro."

Assuming this rumored lens will have a true magnification of 2:1, I hope that doesn't mean it will be less useful for general purpose at longer focus distances.

Dave

 

[John King]

I wonder about this too. Can someone out there educate me on why more macro lenses are not capable of magnification beyond 1:1 ? I've seen quite a few that don't even get to 1:1 and yet they are still called "macro."

Dave, one requisite for a macro lens, regardless of magnification, is that the plane of focus is flat at its minimum focus distance. I have a Tamron 'macro' lens that is only 1:3.5 magnification, but has a flat plane of focus at MFD.

Assuming this rumored lens will have a true magnification of 2:1, I hope that doesn't mean it will be less useful for general purpose at longer focus distances.

With almost all macro lenses (but not all), they make excellent general purpose lenses as well.

 

[PakkyT]

1:1 magnification for FF means a camera can fill the frame with a 36x24mm object in focus. For 4/3 and m4/3, it would be something like 17x13mm.

I prefer the more traditional definition of 1:1 where the magnification is strictly a characteristic of the lens and the image projected out the back of the lens at the "flange" distance for which it was designed is the same size as the thing being imaged. Makes it very easy to compare lenses from any system. Then the sensor or film size can be added in to get the field of view magnification of what is captured.

 

[Hypilein]

So a 1:1 mft lens actually fills the frame with a smaller subject than a 1:1 full frame lens. So the magnification in terms of pixels you get out of the sensor is actually higher on MFT?

 

[RichardC]

I prefer the more traditional definition of 1:1 where the magnification is strictly a characteristic of the lens and the image projected out the back of the lens at the "flange" distance for which it was designed is the same size as the thing being imaged. Makes it very easy to compare lenses from any system. Then the sensor or film size can be added in to get the field of view magnification of what is captured.

This!

Remember the days when a flash unit's guide number was expressed in meters at 100 ISO at default zoom setting?

 

[Hypilein]

This!

Remember the days when a flash unit's guide number was expressed in meters at 100 ISO at default zoom setting?

I think this is still the case?

 

[RichardC]

So a 1:1 mft lens actually fills the frame with a smaller subject than a 1:1 full frame lens. So the magnification in terms of pixels you get out of the sensor is actually higher on MFT?

Yes, assuming pixel count and density is the same. It's not an entirely level playing field but it's why MFT cameras are so useful for macro. That and size, weight, IBIS etc etc

 

[RichardC]

I think this is still the case?

It definitely isn't

Edit: I'll expand on this. Manufacturers generally quote 200 ISO at the longest zoom setting thesedays. Of course, the zoom setting varies so it makes it difficult to compare one flash with another. Less of a problem with fixed head strobes though.

 

[Hypilein]

Yes, assuming pixel count and density is the same. It's not an entirely level playing field but it's why MFT cameras are so useful for macro. That and size, weight, IBIS etc etc

Pixel count and density can never be the same on different size sensors. I assume you just meant pixel count? Generally I just care about the resulting image, so I'm wondering if this is still connected to the crop factor or if they are independent: Will a 30mm 1:1 lens fill the frame with the same object size like a 60mm 1:1 or like a 60mm 1:2?

It definitely isn't

Edit: I'll expand on this. Manufacturers generally quote 200 ISO at the longest zoom setting thesedays. Of course, the zoom setting varies so it makes it difficult to compare one flash with another. Less of a problem with fixed head strobes though.

I honestly don't look much into land strobes, so I thought Guide Number was still measured the same. Didn't know they changed the measurement without changing the name. Very cheeky.

What I learned with underwater strobes is that Guide Number is a very bad measurement anyway and only functional as a rough guideline, if at all. Not sure how this translates to land flashes, but probably we're going way offtopic here.

 

[RichardC]

Will a 30mm 1:1 lens fill the frame with the same object size like a 60mm 1:1 or like a 60mm 1:2?

30mm 1:1 lens will fill the frame with the same object size like a 60mm 1:1 - you just have to be closer.

I made the comparison with strobes because, just like macro ratios, I think it is really unhelpful/borderline deliberately misleading (I would apply the latter to flash manufacturers) to quote "equivalent" reproduction ratios.

Where do you draw the line? Equivalent to 5:1 medium format?

PS - Whilst it has no effect of reproduction size at sensor level, I mentioned pixel density because the manufacturers generally forget to mention if you want "twice" as sharp based on megapixels alone, you need 4x the pixels in the same area. Yet another variable. "Hey everyone, upgrade from 20 to 24 MP! The quality improvement will blow you away! (Oops...it actually won't, sorry)"

 

[RichardC]

Not sure how this translates to land flashes, but probably we're going way offtopic here.

I'm rather good at that. My apologies.

 

[RS86]

I made the comparison with strobes because, just like macro ratios, I think it is really unhelpful/borderline deliberately misleading (I would apply the latter to flash manufacturers) to quote "equivalent" reproduction ratios.

Where do you draw the line? Equivalent to 5:1 medium format?

What I care about most with my macro photography, is the end result. In DPR people say it is not 2:1, which is true, but it is misleading. It makes it look like FF is as good in macro photography as M43, when in fact you have to crop to get the same size small insect to fill the FF frame compared to M43.

So 1:1 is a good guideline to have, but also it is important for people to know that M43 has benefits in macro photography, especially hand-held.

People might get tricked and buy more expensive, a lot bigger gear (especially looking at those macro lenses, which can't even go over FF f/22 DoF) and get similar or worse results.

With a tripod and stacking FF should be better.