PDA

View Full Version : 4/3 35mm Macro lens purchase.


Pupkin
15th January 2018, 12:01 PM
Hi all, wishing you all a very happy new year.*chr

My recent E-510 purchase was definitely the right one for me, for my current level, itís more than enough to keep me busy! I have a question regarding lenses:

My camera came with the Olympus Digital lens as standard 40-150mm but Iíve just spotted on ebay a 35mm Macro lens for sale on ebay, I have a pretty good idea what I could use this for but might it be a good purchase (price depending) for portraits / closer compositions and yield better results than my standard at 40mm?

Thanks,

alfbranch
15th January 2018, 12:52 PM
Is you interest in macro?

If not there may be better lenses out there.

Pupkin
15th January 2018, 01:10 PM
Hi, yes itís something that interests me and a lot of the shots I take tend to be close up and I feel some shots are lacking detail often, I have watched a few tutorials that recommend macro lens for not just close up but most things?

(I hasten to add I am no professional and itís purely my hobby on a meagre budget!)

Jim Ford
15th January 2018, 01:30 PM
The 35mm macro is a good macro lens. I've got one that I used until I bought the 50mm macro. The 50mm is the better lens, but a lot dearer. Some people say that for macro, the working distance of the 35mm makes lighting difficult, because of the closeness of the lens to the subject.

Jim

alfbranch
15th January 2018, 02:41 PM
There are not many prfoessionals on this site so you are good company.

Macro is not easy and a Zuiko 35mm f3.5 is not an easy lens to use IMO. It is better suited to work on a tripod with static subjects. Lighting is the key to good photography.
For live insect sbjects I would recomemnd a Sigma 105 f2.8 and it is my preffered lens.
http://www.ffordes.com/product/17113011352681

An examploe of some the shots you have taken may help us to pint you in the right direction. It depends on what sort of subject you are shooting as to which lens suits best.

For portraits on a meagre budget think about a 14-54
http://www.ffordes.com/product/16050416301081

Or for more money the 12-60mm
www.ffordes.com/category/Lenses/4/3rds

or on a real budget the 14-42
http://www.ffordes.com/product/17021611410581

RobEW
15th January 2018, 03:33 PM
12-60 SWD is a superb lens for its (used) price, and very versatile. It would complement the 40-150 nicely. If you specifically want to do macro (which is - as has been said - quite a difficult area, especially for outdoor moving subjects such as insects) then I agree that working distance and lighting are critical, so the 50mm or Sigma 105 or even Sigma 150 may be better than 35mm. and if budget permis, maybe a Metz ring flash or a hot-shoe mounted flash with some clever diffuser.

alfbranch
16th January 2018, 08:32 PM
A ringflssh is not the best for macro really and much cheaper options can work very well.


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Jim Ford
16th January 2018, 10:08 PM
A ringflssh is not the best for macro really and much cheaper options can work very well.

The Metz is not really a true ringflash. It uses two separate flash tubes behind a ring shaped diffuser. I have one - it works well.

Jim

Petrochemist
17th January 2018, 10:41 AM
For portraits on a meagre budget think about a 14-54
http://www.ffordes.com/product/16050416301081

Or for more money the 12-60mm
www.ffordes.com/category/Lenses/4/3rds (http://www.ffordes.com/category/Lenses/4/3rds)

or on a real budget the 14-42
http://www.ffordes.com/product/17021611410581



Those lenses look a little on the short side for portraits, though they are fine at their longer ends. A basic 50mm prime would be a better option IMO. Gets you to the recommended sort of focal length to get flattering perspective & allows wider apertures if required without breaking the bank. IQ for them is normally pretty good too!

Jim Ford
17th January 2018, 11:04 AM
Those lenses look a little on the short side for portraits, though they are fine at their longer ends. A basic 50mm prime would be a better option IMO. Gets you to the recommended sort of focal length to get flattering perspective & allows wider apertures if required without breaking the bank. IQ for them is normally pretty good too!

I agree. The Zuiko 50mm F2.0 macro is a great lens, but is far more expensive.

Jim

Petrochemist
17th January 2018, 11:47 AM
I agree. The Zuiko 50mm F2.0 macro is a great lens, but is far more expensive.

Jim
That's a 50mm MACRO not a basic 50. It's also unusually fast for a macro lens, most 50mm macros are F/4.
A basic 50 will typically focus to just over a foot, being able to get closer than usually wanted for portraits, but not to macro without additional aid.
The OP wasn't specific about how much closer their closer compositions are.


I guess a basic 50mm may not be that different than the OP's existing lens other than giving faster apertures. Adding a simple extension tube set might be more useful for their 'closer compositions.' The effect of extension varies with focal length at 150mm the longest point of focus with a short extension probably overlaps with the focus range without a tube. Down at the 40mm end it will probably get into the true macro range.

Ross the fiddler
17th January 2018, 12:35 PM
If the 35mm lens is cheap enough then go for it. It is difficult with lighting for 1:1 macro, especially since the front element moves for focussing, which means it is fully extended for maximum magnification with a fairly short working distance (from the front of the lens), however it can be nice for distances a little further away, although it is slow to focus & audible as it does. The last time my daughter used it (on my E30 with tripod) was for story boarding on a whiteboard, doing hand sketches. If you don't already have a 14-42 lens then that would be worthwhile if cheap enough, but if the budget can be extended then the 14-54 f2.8-3.5 would be a very good lens & it focusses close. Obviously, the 12-60 f2.8-4.0 SWD lens is nice but would cost more.

alfbranch
17th January 2018, 01:33 PM
Those lenses look a little on the short side for portraits, though they are fine at their longer ends. A basic 50mm prime would be a better option IMO. Gets you to the recommended sort of focal length to get flattering perspective & allows wider apertures if required without breaking the bank. IQ for them is normally pretty good too!

Those lenses all exceed the focal length suggested by the OP and complement the lens already owned. Two of them exceed the 50mm you suggest.

Jim Ford
17th January 2018, 07:08 PM
Adding a simple extension tube set might be more useful for their 'closer compositions.' The effect of extension varies with focal length at 150mm the longest point of focus with a short extension probably overlaps with the focus range without a tube. Down at the 40mm end it will probably get into the true macro range.

I've got an Oly EX25 extension tube, but never use it. Sods Law dictates that when you fit one, a once in a lifetime shot will appear - but outside the range of the lens+tube maximum focusing distance. By the time you've taken the tube off the shot will have gone!

Jim