Olympus 4/3 macro choices?

[ce4jesus]

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 Flickr: Gary Ramey's Photostream 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?

 

[jan10]

what i use is the 50mm + the 50mm- port from INON, which is much cheaper than the the olyport and the INON-wet lens which you can attach to this INON port (not possible with the olyport). In fact I bought originaly the oly-port, reselled this port (2nd hand) and bought with the same amount of money this INON port where I could attach the wet magnifier lens from INON. Of course this was before INON closed in US.
jan

 

[Ardy]

Gary - I looked at your shots and I am wondering what you want to achieve. The 50mm macro seems to be doing a great job for you. The shot of yours of the whipgoby could have done with a wet lens or a converter but you know the downside to these add on lens is always loss of DOF and often edge sharpeness. I would most probably buy a 1.4 converter and have a 140 lens and a less than 1:1 macro. Still not enough for pygmy sea horses but once you have a photo of them - well you have a photo of them.

Love your lionfish face shot. I thought I had a good one but yours is gorgeous.

I will PM you as I am interested in going to the Phillipines again and I'm wondering how you found it.

 

[Ardy]

Gary - I was thinking about the 35mm with a teleconverter. I know Phil said the problem with the 35mm is the short focus distance but I wonder what a converter would do to the focal point.

Could be very interesting with a 1.4 converter which would make it a 98mm lens and a 2.8:1 macro. If this all works out mathematically.

This could be a great lens for clear water macro shots and could put you greater than 1:1 for 'clos-ish' fish shots and a very serious close up lens.

Might be worth a chat to someone (maybe reef photo). The first thought is obviously Phil R but I dont think he would have any experience with a lens like this.

I would be interested in this myself as it may be a great alternative to the 50mm macro.

 

[PHIL RUDIN]

I have used the 35 mm with the 1.4 & 2 X tele converters quite a bit.

So the 35 mm which is true life size, 1:1 is a 1.4:1 lens with the 1.4 tele and a 2:1 lens with the 2 X tele.

In 35 mm terms it would be a 2:1 lens, 2.8:1 and 4:1 with the two tele converters.

With the two tele converters the minimum distance to the subject does not change only the magnification so you still need to be very close to get the full effect.

I like the 35 to shoot very small subjects with the tele converters or as a fish portrait lens for larger fish that don't fit well in the 50 macro angle of view. In never shoot the lens from more than about twelve to fourteen inches from the subject.

I think the I.Q. is quite good for an under $200.00 macro lens.

Phil Rudin

Phil Rudin Bio

 

[Ardy]

I have used the 35 mm with the 1.4 & 2 X tele converters quite a bit.

So the 35 mm which is true life size, 1:1 is a 1.4:1 lens with the 1.4 tele and a 2:1 lens with the 2 X tele.

In 35 mm terms it would be a 2:1 lens, 2.8:1 and 4:1 with the two tele converters.

With the two tele converters the minimum distance to the subject does not change only the magnification so you still need to be very close to get the full effect.

I like the 35 to shoot very small subjects with the tele converters or as a fish portrait lens for larger fish that don't fit well in the 50 macro angle of view. In never shoot the lens from more than about twelve to fourteen inches from the subject.

I think the I.Q. is quite good for an under $200.00 macro lens.

Phil Rudin

Phil Rudin Bio

Hi Phil - I didnt realise you had shot this combination.

Sorry to jump in here Gary but I just want to understand something.

When you are using the 35 lens at 12"-14" do you still get approx 1:1 or less/more? I am thinking without the 1.4 converter.

With the 1.4 converter would you get greater than 1:1 at 12"-14"? Do you need another port apart from the Olympus PPO-E05?

The reason I ask is that the 1.4 converter could have other uses for me and if this combo works well then it might be a substitute for the 50mm macro for me.

regards

Ardy

 

[PHIL RUDIN]

Hi Ardy,

With a custom port made for the 35 macro the closest focus (1:1) is at about three inches from the dome glass and with the 2 X tele it would be 2:1 at the same three inches. So with the 1.4 or 2X tele the 1:1 range moves further from the dome glass.

12 to 14 inches is the furthest distance I would shoot any subject and the subject would be well in access of life size.

Hope this is more clear.

Phil

Phil Rudin Bio

 

[ce4jesus]

Hi Ardy,
No problem, you're adding to the discussion here and I might not understand the right questions to ask. I love the 50mm macro and I used it with the woody's diopter over the standard PPO-E05 port. I simply cut the Olympus port cover and installed the Woody's inside the cutout. I was looking for better magnification than I was getting with that combination. My initial thoughts were the same as yours...get the 35mm, port and try that combination with a wet diopter. But I've since ran across a deal I couldn't refuse. I purchased a brand new 1.4 TC for $250 from craigslist. So now I guess my trip in July will be with the 1.4, 50mm and woody's...hopefully in the Inon Port with the magnetic focus adjustment.

 

[Ardy]

Gary I will be interested to know how the image quality/DOF comes out with that combination because (apart from the Woodies diopter) the 50mm + 1.4 would seem to me to be ideal for what I want to do.

Inon Port and magnetic focus adjustment is dream stuff - how did you get approval for the spend from the financial controller?

 

[Ardy]

Hi Ardy,

With a custom port made for the 35 macro the closest focus (1:1) is at about three inches from the dome glass and with the 2 X tele it would be 2:1 at the same three inches. So with the 1.4 or 2X tele the 1:1 range moves further from the dome glass.

12 to 14 inches is the furthest distance I would shoot any subject and the subject would be well in access of life size.

Hope this is more clear.

Phil

Phil Rudin Bio

Thanks Phil - does this mean you wouldnt use it as a fish lens at all, and would shoot nothing apart from macro?

The big advantage of the 50mm is its ability as a fish lens.