Which Close-up filter for Olympus 14-150?

[WaltP]

Looking for experience with close-up lenses (diopters, etc.) for the Olympus 14-150 lens.

I know lens designs can be very picky about which close-ups they work well with; so I am asking for experienced users to give me some options - other than the Raynox 150 (I have that already, a bit clunky, but works past 70mm and gets soft at 150mm).

I have heard one person claim that the Canon 500D works with this lens. Can anyone confirm that (it costs enough that I would want to be sure it worked. I had the Canon 250D which simply was awful on this lens. Soft and terrible color-fringing. Corners were like Vaseline. Only about center 30% of frame was close to sharp. Color-fringing was a mess to work against.

Any other close-up lens that work well with the Olympus 14-150?

Or are extension tubes the way to go for this lens?

 

[barry]

Hi, extension tubes work better up to short telephoto lengths, and diopters are better at longer lengths. Somewhere around 70mm is the turning point.

Raynox have a great reputation, fwiw.

How much magnification and working distance are you looking for?
What subjects?

A legacy 50mm macro lens might be a good option for .5 or 1x magnification, for under $100USD including adapter, if you don't mind manual focus.

 

[RAH]

I can't imagine an add-on lens ever being better than an extension tube, at any focal length. I mean, there's no glass in an extension tube, so it seems as though it would be hard to beat with any kind of device that has optics in it. I've always kind of thought that add-on lenses were mostly for convenience (I mean, they ARE a lot more convenient than extension tubes).

 

[richardp]

I don't have one but the Olympus mcon-p01 is designed for this lens. Seems to get reasonable reviews on Amazon etc. No longer available from Olympus but you can still get them on eBay etc

You'll find various comments on this site if you do a search.

 

[barry]

I can't imagine an add-on lens ever being better than an extension tube, at any focal length. I mean, there's no glass in an extension tube, so it seems as though it would be hard to beat with any kind of device that has optics in it. I've always kind of thought that add-on lenses were mostly for convenience (I mean, they ARE a lot more convenient than extension tubes).

Hi, you should look at the macro work here by @Hayath, @MarkB1, @fotoppi, @orflo, @wjiang, and others who use the Raynox diopters.
e.g. https://www.mu-43.com/threads/macro-mix.107547/
(he's using the Raynox plus a 10mm extension for those shots).
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/macros-from-valparai-ii.105603/
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/blue-banded-bees-17-images.104598/
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/share-dragonfly-butterfly-insects.5167/post-1373954 (with the cheap Oly 40-150R)
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/insect-diversity.99573/ (first image)
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/macro-with-the-panasonic-45-175mm-raynox-dcr-250.82935/ (with the cheap Pana 45-175)

Note again that extension tubes don't work well at longer focal lengths (which are often needed for greater working distance on live subjects).
Also, extension tubes are always going to throw away a lot of light/brightness and resolution.

Here's a good, recent thread on cheap macro options:
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/advice-on-macro-photography-on-the-cheap.107588/

 

[Hayath]

Thanks Barry!
Walt - I'd lean towards the Raynox DCR 250, the snap on/snap off makes it a breeze to use (extension tubes are slightly problematic if one wants to get a lower magnification, with changing lenses in the field)

And as long as you're in the "focus range" , you can get autofocus to work too

 

[piggsy]

WRT tubes vs clip on lenses - what you typically gain with adding a lens to the system vs extending the same lens by tube/bellows is a reduction in effective aperture at the same magnification. The tradeoff is a reduction in effective focal length instead, which is why they work best with lenses that are already pretty long. There's a whole weird field of pseudoscience based on optical glass somehow polluting the light as light goes from element to element that isn't really based on anything. Really, the entire point of designing a lens is for it to be better than just yoinking the whole thing forward off the sensor.

Sometimes whacking another 6 bits of glass on the front with an entire new reversed lens rather than just 2 with the raynox produces way better results, even.

https://www.closeuphotography.com/stacked-lenses

 

[Egregius V]

I have heard one person claim that the Canon 500D works with this lens. Can anyone confirm that (it costs enough that I would want to be sure it worked. I had the Canon 250D which simply was awful on this lens. Soft and terrible color-fringing. Corners were like Vaseline. Only about center 30% of frame was close to sharp. Color-fringing was a mess to work against.

Turns out I have a Canon 500D 58mm, a hand-me-down that I'd forgotten about until just a few days ago. I was trying to photograph a bee and some flowers in a tree, and was in the mood to try something different, so I put this on my Oly. 40-150 R. The depth of field gets rather thin, so not much of each image I took is in sharp focus. I probably lost sharpness with this thing on the lens, but can't rule out user error right now. Autofocus engaged fairly well and then it was like using a macro lens: move the camera back and forth to adjust. I didn't notice any fringing at all. And it worked in the entire zoom range.

I just put the 500D on the 14-150 II on a GX85. It's night and I'm indoors, so I can't test it out too much. But close focusing and AF are as I remember with the 40-150 R. Depth of field is rather thin and the focus distance is limited especially when zoomed in. The focus distance at 150mm is about 6.5". It seems I can get decent sharpness anywhere in the frame, but it's super difficult while holding the camera. There might be some field curvature, too - hard to tell.

I hope that helps. Unfortunately, I have very little experience with these close-focus filters and have yet to find any real benefit in them over other options. I suppose this one's OK. It's thick and takes the lens cap just fine.

 

[WaltP]

Turns out I have a Canon 500D 58mm, a hand-me-down that I'd forgotten about until just a few days ago. I was trying to photograph a bee and some flowers in a tree, and was in the mood to try something different, so I put this on my Oly. 40-150 R. The depth of field gets rather thin, so not much of each image I took is in sharp focus. I probably lost sharpness with this thing on the lens, but can't rule out user error right now. Autofocus engaged fairly well and then it was like using a macro lens: move the camera back and forth to adjust. I didn't notice any fringing at all. And it worked in the entire zoom range.

I just put the 500D on the 14-150 II on a GX85. It's night and I'm indoors, so I can't test it out too much. But close focusing and AF are as I remember with the 40-150 R. Depth of field is rather thin and the focus distance is limited especially when zoomed in. The focus distance at 150mm is about 6.5". It seems I can get decent sharpness anywhere in the frame, but it's super difficult while holding the camera. There might be some field curvature, too - hard to tell.

I hope that helps. Unfortunately, I have very little experience with these close-focus filters and have yet to find any real benefit in them over other options. I suppose this one's OK. It's thick and takes the lens cap just fine.

If you decide to part with your Canon 500D. 58mm, please let me know. Thanks.

 

[RAH]

Hi, you should look at the macro work here by @Hayath, @MarkB1, @fotoppi, @orflo, @wjiang, and others who use the Raynox diopters.
e.g. https://www.mu-43.com/threads/macro-mix.107547/
(he's using the Raynox plus a 10mm extension for those shots).
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/macros-from-valparai-ii.105603/
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/blue-banded-bees-17-images.104598/
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/share-dragonfly-butterfly-insects.5167/post-1373954 (with the cheap Oly 40-150R)
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/insect-diversity.99573/ (first image)
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/macro-with-the-panasonic-45-175mm-raynox-dcr-250.82935/ (with the cheap Pana 45-175)

Note again that extension tubes don't work well at longer focal lengths (which are often needed for greater working distance on live subjects).
Also, extension tubes are always going to throw away a lot of light/brightness and resolution.

Here's a good, recent thread on cheap macro options:
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/advice-on-macro-photography-on-the-cheap.107588/

Thanks for the links and info, Barry. I have a Raynox. I'm not saying they aren't good and also handy, and yes, they are more effective at higher focal lengths, while tubes are more effective at lower focal lengths. But I guess I am just thinking there are a lot of in-betweens where it might be better to use tubes. They are all good, however.

 

[WaltP]

Well, it sounds like the Rsynox is the way to go with the 14-150 Olympus lens. Thanks everyone. I guess I got lucky this time. I have the Raynox DCR-150.

 

[RS86]

Stewart Wood compared extension tube vs Raynox-250 in this video. He says he can't see much difference in sharpness.

I personally use Olympus 60mm and usually Raynox-250 on it. Sometimes also Raynox-150. It's very easy system and pretty fast to change, just need to clean dust from different lenses which is a bit annoying of course.

I have understood that you lose light with extension tubes, and also it's a hazzle to take it off fast when outdoors. Also I read that eventhough there is no glass in those, the difference in focusing distance will affect quality, because the lens is not optimized for such close focus.

I find the quality very good for my purposes, can print 1 meter (40") wide with good quality because I crop none or max. 15 %.

 

[archaeopteryx]

Sometimes whacking another 6 bits of glass on the front with an entire new reversed lens rather than just 2 with the Raynox produces way better results, even.

Minor aside: the DCRs are three elements in two groups and I've never encountered an assessment of copy variation. The older 4/3 and 6/4 lenses most likely to be alternatives to the DCR-250 are known for significant copy variation, perhaps enough a good 4/3 could beat a poor 6/4 based on the ones I've evaluated. From the Raynox evaluations I've seen, it doesn't appear a current production 3/2 gains to be likely to match a 1980s era 4/3, much less the often quite expensive options Robert tests. However, if an older single coated lens is reversed, I'm less confident this would hold.

Another caveat is Robert usually tests with tube lens equivalents as the rear lens in the coupled pair, rather than with native mount lenses. This lets him focus the rear lens beyond infinity to avoid conjugate sign mismatch with the front lens (he calls it short focus since the extension is less than the tube lens's focal length), which usually isn't possible in native mount. It also makes vignetting less of an issue than when the rear lens is a zoom.

 

[Mike Wingate]

I am happy with my Raynox DCR 250 on my P14-140mm. Easy when out and about.

 

[Egregius V]

If you decide to part with your Canon 500D. 58mm, please let me know. Thanks.

Well, after a few weeks of play time with the Canon 500D, I can tell you I won't be parting with it! Though I'm afraid it tried to part ways with me this morning: it slipped out of my hand at chest height onto asphalt. Bounced on its edge and rolled on. Fortunately, the thing's indestructible. And while I don't like my initial tests with the 14-150 and 40-150, that was indeed due to very shallow depth of field. I like the diopter a lot more with the Pan. 100-300 II.

I realize the 500D is intended for telephoto lenses, but had to try it on some of my wider instruments also. It's very good on the 75mm f/1.8. Seems fine on the Pan. 12-60, also - a lens that already focuses close. Sharpness remains good as far as I can tell. On my Oly. 9-18, the 500D is rather interesting, even fun: while corners show streaky out-of-focus areas and bad vignetting, sharpness remains good and the perspective is unusual. Images are contrasty.

How's the Raynox working out for you? I've considered trying one for a long time and imagine I'd prefer it to the 500D.

 

[Aristophanes]

I prefer the Canon close-up filters to the Raynox. The Canon optics are stellar. It comes in a 250D for shorter FLs as well as the 500D for tele. Years ago some guy on photo.net or similar did a shootout and acuity test between Raynox, Canon, and others, and the Canon won handily. I prefer them for non 1:1 as they don’t lose light compare to tubes.

 

[WaltP]

I prefer the Canon close-up filters to the Raynox. The Canon optics are stellar. It comes in a 250D for shorter FLs as well as the 500D for tele. Years ago some guy on photo.net or similar did a shootout and acuity test between Raynox, Canon, and others, and the Canon won handily. I prefer them for non 1:1 as they don’t lose light compare to tubes.

Ok. But the 500D changes minimum focus to 500mm, which is already the MFD of the 14-150. So, does it actually do anything on this lens?

 

[Petrochemist]

Ok. But the 500D changes minimum focus to 500mm, which is already the MFD of the 14-150. So, does it actually do anything on this lens?

No, the 500D changes the Maximum focus to 500mm. the minimum focus will be less - I think it works out at 250mm.
Have a look at http://extreme-macro.co.uk/extreme-macro-closeup-lenses/#calculator and you can calculate the magnification range etc.

 

[0000]

On my Oly. 9-18, the 500D is rather interesting, even fun: while corners show streaky out-of-focus areas and bad vignetting, sharpness remains good and the perspective is unusual. Images are contrasty.

If you find yourself having fun with close-up-wide-angle, you might want to investigate processing RAWs with the (typically silently applied) lens correction disabled... my experience with the Oly 12/2 is that the normal correction overshoots under those conditions and actually produces "pincushion" distortion rather than correcting the barrel distortion.

 

[Markky99]

I have the 500D in 77mm size. I use a 72-77mm step-up ring with my 40-150 Pro, and it works fine. Distances as above.

I used to use it a lot with my 4/3rds 50-200mm which worked very well - great for butterflies etc.

It is heavier than using an extension tube, but that is testament to the amount of glass in it's manufacture.

Mark