Macro lens for the Olympus 4/3 standard

[ce4jesus 1]

I've been shooting the 50mm for over a year now and have had some good results with the lens; however, in the quest for the perfect underwater microscope I'm looking to improve. The 50mm is a 1:2 for the 4/3 sensor which makes it a 1:1 equivalent in 35mm terms. I've been shooting the 50mm in a standard port not made for the lens so the only wet diopter I've used has been a woody's customed to the end of a flat port. The results My 50mm macro photos have been decent.

The 35mm is a 1:1 on the 4/3 sensor which would make it 2:1 in 35mm terms. Here are my options, relative costs etc. If you have any of these lenses I would love to hear your feedback.

 

1. Buy a 35mm lens and port for about $450

2. Buy just a port designed for the 50mm for $500

3. Buy a 2.0 teleconverter for the 50mm, port extension for $600

 

Number 1 is obviously attractive because of its price. I feel like I must be missing something here because although the 50mm is a better, faster lens...I would think things would almost be the same with both lenses stopped down to F15 or higher...right? The only difference is the 35mm macro lens will give me closer, larger results. The port designed for either lens will allow me to add something like a subsee adapter.

 

The only other lenses out there are a sigma 105mm (210mm seems long underwater) but would add 1:1 macro and working distance.

 

 

Thoughts?

[sgietler 1]

hey Gary,

 

I think you have 2 good choices imho - use the 50mm with a 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter (choice #3),

or get a longer lens like the sigma 105mm and use it with a strong diopter.

 

good luck!

 

Scott

[JackConnick 76]

The 35mm is not nearly as sharp a lens. Using the 50mm in a regular port works, but you are not getting as close to the subject as you would with the port for the 50, so you are not getting as much magnification as it is designed for.

 

Olympus suggests the teleconverter for more magnification. You would need an extension ring.

 

The other option would be to see about a different sleave to fit the Woody's on the 50mm port. If Nexus has it they are pretty cheap.

 

Jack

Edited March 12, 2009 by JackConnick

[dsbierman 0]

I've been (not so) patiently waiting for the Zuiko 100mm macro lens for several years. If it were available, I think that would be your best bet. In the meantime, I would suggest using a 1.4x TC + port extension. It's also your cheapest option. I've been very happy with my results since I added it to my 50mm. Plus, when the 100mm eventually becomes available, you'll be able to use that in conjunction with the 1.4x. That will give you more flexibility with focal lengths of 50, 70, 100, & 140mm. --David

[craig 0]

The 35mm is not nearly as sharp a lens.

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=25163

 

The 35mm, 50 + TC and 100mm options do substantially different things. A 100mm would not be too long for the right subjects, but adding a TC to a 100mm might. If you wanted more power, I'd say get the TC with the 50. The 35 will be better for fish portraits.

[Deep6 7]

The 35mm is not nearly as sharp a lens. Using the 50mm in a regular port works, but you are not getting as close to the subject as you would with the port for the 50, so you are not getting as much magnification as it is designed for.

 

Olympus suggests the teleconverter for more magnification. You would need an extension ring.

 

The other option would be to see about a different sleave to fit the Woody's on the 50mm port. If Nexus has it they are pretty cheap.

 

Jack

 

The Woody wet diopter fits 90, 100, and 110 mm diameter ports. I think it is the same lens with different port covers cut to fit the various ports. e.g. I had a 100 wet diopter that I fitted to the 110 port by cutting out a hole in a 110 port cap.

 

Bob

[Phil Rudin 454]

Hey Gary,

 

I use both the 35 & 50 macros with the 1.4 & X 2 tele converters.

 

For the 35 macro I prefer the Athena 35 mm port , the only port that matches the lens and allows it to come within a millimeter or two of the port glass. I agree with Craig that the 35 macro is most well suited to fish portraits because at life size 1:1 (about 2:1 on a 35 sensor) the subject can be quite close to the port glass. For subjects that don't move like corals it will work at 1:1 but for anything else you will not be in a good comfort range for the subject. Because the lens is an F/3.5 lens the AF will be slower than the 50 macro without the TC. While the 35 macro is not as sharp as the 50 macro you will not find a sharper macro anywhere for under $200.00 new or one what will go to twice life size in 35. I have also used the 35 mm with the X 2 tele converter which gets you to 2:1 or 4:1 in 35 terms. At 4:1 the focus distance is the same as at 2:1 without the TC. which allows a little more working distance as you move away from closest focus. I also have the ability to use manual focus with both lenses which I do most when using an external Inon UCL-165 M67 close-up lens. The Athena and Inon macro ports for Olympus/Nexus/SeaTool housings are both threaded 67 mm which makes this the ideal size for ease of use. For me the Woody does not add that much in terms of power. I used one for years with the Nikonos RS 50 macro with 2 X tele converter and it always left me wanting more.

 

If you intend to go with the 50 macro and tele converters I would look to the Inon macro port because of the magnetic manual focus ring. As you add Tele converters and extension rings other ports require a manual focus gear for each combination of lens and TC. The magnetic gear moves forward with the lens so it is always in the right spot regardless of the lens combo, it is also a bit cheaper.

 

I use the 50 macro with the X 2 tele converter all the time in auto focus with very accurate results and again switch to manual at times when I add the close-up lens. Since the 50 macro is a 1:2 lens (about 1:1 in 35 terms) the relative ratios are half that of the 35 macro as stated above.

 

If and when Olympus release the 100 macro (announced on the lens chart over three years ago) I hope it remains an F/2 lens like the 50 and has real 1:1 like the 35 macro.

 

With the X2 tele converter I get F/stops up to F/45 but never use them. I stay in the F/22 to F/11 range most of the time and get plenty of DOF. But then I never used F/45 or F/32 with my 6 X 7 format cameras either.

 

Phil Rudin