Introduction

This blog is a user's perspective on the Micro Four Thirds camera system. Read more ...

Lens Buyer's Guide. Panasonic GH4 review.

My lens reviews: Olympus 9mm f/8 fisheye, Lumix G 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6, Leica 25mm f/1.4, Lumix X 12-35mm f/2.8, Lumix X 35-100mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm f/2.8, Sigma 19mm f/2.8, Lumix X PZ 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6, Lumix X PZ 45-175mm f/4-5.6, Olympus M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8, Panasonic Lumix G 100-300mm f/4-5.6, Panasonic Leica Lumix DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro, Panasonic Lumix G 45-200mm f/4-5.6, Panasonic Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 pancake, Panasonic Lumix G 14mm f/2.5 pancake, Panasonic Lumix G HD 14-140mm f/4-5.8, Panasonic Lumix G HD 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6, Panasonic Lumix G 8mm f/3.5 fisheye, Lumix G 7-14mm f/4, Samyang 7.5mm f/3.5 fisheye, Tokina 300mm f/6.3 mirror reflex tele, Lensbaby 5.8mm f/3.5 circular fisheye lens
The blog contains affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Showing posts with label olympus 50mm f/2 macro. Show all posts
Showing posts with label olympus 50mm f/2 macro. Show all posts

Friday, 25 November 2011

Macro spacer rings for Four Thirds

There are a lot of accessories you can buy for your camera. Since I have a Four Thirds standard lens, the Olympus Zuiko Digital 50mm f/2 1:2 macro lens, I decided to buy some Four Thirds macro rings to extend the macro range of the lens even further. To use the lens on a Micro Four Thirds camera in the first place, and adapter is needed. The Panasonic DMW-MA1 or Olympus MMF1/MMF2 adapters should do. The macro spacer rings then go between the adapter and the Four Thirds lens.

The rings

These rings cost US$10, including shipment from China, which is very cheap. Upon arrival, I noticed that the quality did appear rather poor, in line with the price. The box is rather anonymous, with a "OM4/3" text and something in Chinese:


In the picture below, they are all screwed together, to give the longest possible extension:


And below, I have unscrewed them into individual components:


From left to right: The ring that goes into the adapter, or into a Four Thirds standard camera, and the first extension ring (1, 7mm), the second extension ring (2, 14mm), the third extension ring (3, 27mm), and finally the ring on which the lens is mounted.

By using these rings in different permutations, extensions of 17mm (just the front and rear ring), 24mm, 31mm, 38mm, 44mm, 58mm and 65mm (all the rings) are possible. The 24mm extension, using only the first extension ring marked with a 1, corresponds pretty much to the Olympus EX-25 Four Thirds extension ring at 25mm.

Operation

When using these rings, please note that they have are no electrical contacts at all. This means that the lens is "dead" when mounting it onto the macro extension rings, and you cannot operate the focus or the aperture.

I'm guessing that it is best to first extend the focus of the lens all the way, and then mount it on the extension rings. To do this, you must do a small trick, namely to first manually focus the lens to the minimum focus distance while it is mounted to the camera, and then unmount it without turning off the camera first. That way, you can mount the lens on the extension rings while the focus is already at the closest. Most likely, you'll want to use a smaller aperture than f/2, and again you must do the same trick: Change the aperture and unmount the lens without turning off the camera first. Of course, this process is rather awkward if you are going to experiment with different apertures.

The results

So how do these extension rings affect the close focusing possibility of the ZD50 1:2 macro lens?

First, let's see how close it can focus without any extra extension. Here the lens is mounted to the 4/3 to M4/3 adapter, on the Panasonic GH2 camera:


And the resulting image, at f/8, ISO 160:


24mm extension, 1:1 macro

Using the 24mm extension, corresponding roughly to using the Olympus EX-25 macro extension, the setup looks like this, note that the figure is closer to the front lens element:


With this resulting image, also at f/8 and ISO 160. This corresponds to around 1:1 magnification:


65mm extension, 2:1 macro

Finally, adding all the macro rings for a total of 65mm extension yields this setup:


Note that the figure is now very close to the front lens element. It is not easy to light the figure properly in this position, since the lens casts shadow over the subject. The resulting photo looks like this, at around 2:1 magnification, also written as 2x:


Conclusion

These macro extension rings were cheap, and not very good quality. Further, since they have no electronic contacts, they are very awkward to use. You must stop down the aperture before mounting the lens on the extension rings, which makes focusing harder. Normally, you focus at maximum aperture, and then stop down for taking the picture, which is handled automatically by the camera. But with no communication between the camera and lens, this is no longer possible.

The Olympus EX-25 extension rings allow for changing the aperture, and is probably much easier to use. However, it is also much more expensive.

At full extension, the macro rings allow for roughly 2:1 macro magnification, meaning that you can photograph an object with a diameter of half the diameter of the imaging sensor.

If you want to increase the magnification of a Four Thirds lens, but don't want to shell out the cash for the EX-25 extension ring, I would recommend that you simply crop the center of your images, rather than buy these cheap rings. The rings are not very fun to use, due to the lack of electronic contacts, and the poor quality. Keep in mind that since these rings are for the Four Thirds format, they cannot be used for Micro Four Thirds lenses. They can only be used for Four Thirds lenses.

Saturday, 6 November 2010

Index of lens related articles

Here is an index of lens related articles on this blog, sorted by lens:

Panasonic Lumix X 12-35mm f/2.8



Review

Panasonic Leica Lumix DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro



Review

A study of the bokeh at various apertures

Bokeh comparison with Lumix G HD 14-140mm and Lumix G 45-200mm, all at 45mm

Bokeh comparison with the Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/2 1:2 Macro

A study of the diffraction effects when using smaller apertures

A verification that the enlargement is actually 1:1

Example use of the touch screen AF with Panasonic GH2

A sharpness comparison with the Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/2 1:2 Macro at a long focus distance

A very simple sharpness comparison with the Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/2 1:2 Macro at a close focus distance

Autofocus speed

Olymus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm f/1.8



Review

Optical performance comparison with the Panasonic Leica 45mm f/2.8 macro

Panasonic Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 Pancake



Review

Autofocus speed comparison

Using a third party screw in 46mm metal hood, Leica Summicron type

Using a 46mm to 37mm step down ring as an alternative, low profile hood

An example video capture with the Panasonic Lumix GH1

Bokeh comparison with the Lumix G HD 14-140mm

Using the Lumix 20mm as a portrait lens

Distortion correction

Compared with the Lumix G 14mm f/2.5 pancake lens

A comparison with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens on an APS-C camera. This is a lens that, in my opinion, does more or less the same job, and has around the same price point.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm f/2.5 Pancake



Review

Compared with the Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens

Comparison with the Lumix G 14-42mm and Lumix G HD 14-140mm zoom lenses at 14mm focal length

Autofocus speed comparison

Distortion correction

Measuring the field of view

Lumix G 100-300mm f/4-5.6



Review

Sharpness comparison with the Lumix G 45-200mm and the Lumix G HD 14-140mm

Lumix G 45-200mm f/4-5.6



Review

Bokeh comparison with Lumix G HD 14-140mm and Panasonic Leica Lumix DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro, all at 45mm

A bokeh comparison with the Nikkor 200mm f/4 AIS, not conclusive

Autofocus speed comparison

A look at the relation between the focus distance and field of view

An example video capture

Lumix G X PZ 45-175mm f/4-5.6



Review

Sharpness comparison with Lumix G 45-200mm

Lumix G HD 14-140mm f/4-5.8



Review

Autofocus speed comparison

Bokeh comparison with Lumix G 45-200mm and Panasonic Leica Lumix DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro, all at 45mm

Bokeh comparison with the Lumix 20mm f/1.7, both at 20mm

Example use of the touch screen AF using Panasonic GH2

Lumix G 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye



Review

Autofocus speed

Using the fisheye lens as a macro lens

Sigma 19mm f/2.8 EX DN



Autofocus speed comparison with the Lumix G 20mm f/1.7.

Sharpness comparison with the Lumix G 20mm f/1.7.

Sigma 30mm f/2.8 EX DN



Review

Samyang 7.5mm f/3.5 Fisheye



Review

Field of view comparison with the Lumix G 7-14mm f/4 wide angle zoom

Projection comparison with the Lumix G 8mm f/3.5 fisheye lens

Olympus Zuiko Digital 50mm f/2 1:2 Macro (Four Thirds lens)



Review

Manual focus with the Panasonic Lumix GH1

Bokeh comparison with the Panasonic Leica Lumix 45mm f/2.8 Macro

A simple sharpness comparison with the Panasonic Leica Lumix 45mm f/2.8 Macro

Using a cheap and simple macro soft box

Lumix G 7-14mm f/4 wide angle zoom lens



Short review

Field of view comparison with the Samyang 7.5mm f/3.5 fisheye lens

Wednesday, 1 September 2010

Sharpness comparison, PL45 and ZD50

It's easy to find a lot of opinions about the Panasonic Leica Lumix DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro lens and the Olympus Zuiko Digital 50mm 1:2 Macro lens. Generally, I have seen people saying that the 45mm is less sharp, but has better bokeh.


I have already compared the bokeh of the lenses, and while they are both completely adequate, is is probably true that the Leica Lumix 45mm has more smooth bokeh.

So I decided to compare the sharpness as well. For this study, I took a picture of a woolen scarf with some texture using both lenses. Here are the whole pictures, scaled down and sharpened a bit. Click for larger images.

PL45mm, f/2.8ZD50mm, f/2.8
PL45mm, f/5.6ZD50mm, f/5.6


I focused on the centre of the image. This was done manually for both lenses.

These images are not very well suited for judging the sharpness, though. We need to study some closeups of parts of the image. Here is the centre of the images, shown in 100% view, meaning that each pixel off the sensor becomes one pixel on the image. These images were not sharpened. Click for larger images.


f/2.8


f/5.6


Comparing the f/2.8 images might pose some problems. The lenses could be focused slightly differently. With the narrow depth of field at this aperture setting, this could lead to areas being out of focus in different ways. However, looking at the areas that are in focus, I think we can see that the contrast is a bit higher in the Panasonic Lumix 45mm image.

For the f/5.6 image, all of the cropped images should pretty much be in focus, with the wider depth of field. Again, I think it looks like the sharpness and contrast is a bit higher in the Panasonic Lumix 45mm image. But people might judge these images subjectively in different ways.

Conclusion

I think it looks like the Panasonic Lumix 45mm macro is slightly more sharp in this example. We should keep in mind that the Panasonic Lumix 45mm is more of a dedicated macro lens than the Olympus 50mm. After all, the PL45 has got higher maximum magnification. Also the Olympus 50mm has got a larger aperture, suggesting that it is intended to be used as a portrait lens as well. Hence, it could be that the Olympus 50mm is optimized for focus somewhat further away than the Panasonic Lumix 45mm is.

It should be noted, however, that in this example, both lenses are producing images that are sharp enough for most conceivable uses. Judging their relative sharpness in this case is very close to nitpicking.

In addition to this test, I have also studied the sharpness of the lenses at a longer focus distance.

Friday, 9 July 2010

Bokeh comparison, ZD50 and PL45

The Olympus Zuiko Digital 50mm f/2 macro and the Panasonic Leica Lumix DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 macro lenses are somewhat similar. The 50mm is a Four Thirds lens, and requires an adapter to be used on Micro Four Thirds (MFT) cameras. The Lumix Leica 45mm, on the other hand is a native MFT lens.

The Olympus 50mm is not optimized for Contrast Detection Autofocus (CDAF), and will autofocus slowly on MFT cameras, and not at all on the first series of Panasonic MFT cameras (G1, GH1, GF1). The Olympus has an edge when it comes to maximum aperture, one full stop faster than the Lumix Leica. On the other hand, the Lumix Leica has optical image stabilization built in.

Both lenses are useful both for macro photography and portrait photography.

This study looks into the bokeh (out of focus rendering) for a typical portrait setup. In the comparison, the subject, which is not a face in this case, is about one meter away from the camera. This corresponds to a headshot distance. The background foliage is about five meters from the camera. When taking a portrait under these conditions, it is important that the background is nicely blurred, and does not stand out to distract from the main subject.

I have previously compared the bokeh of the 45mm f/2.8 macro with two zoom lenses at 45mm, and looked at the bokeh for the 45mm f/2.8 macro at various apertures.

Here is the full image, taken at maximum aperture with both lenses. The images were taken within less than five minutes, so the lightning is mostly similar. I used a tripod, and ISO 100 in all the images. I used the P exposure mode, and auto white balance. The camera used was Panasonic Lumix GH1.

For both lenses I focused manually using the maximum enlargement. The images were rescaled and sharpened. Click on the image to view it larger.

Panasonic Leica Lumix DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm f/2.8

Olympus Zuiko Digital 50mm f/2

What's more interesting in terms of bokeh, though, is to compare 100% views of various regions at the same aperture.

Here is the centre at f/2.8 (click to enlarge):

The centre at f/4 (click to enlarge):

The centre at f/5.6 (click to enlarge):

Here's also 100% crops from the lower left corner. Since the field of view is not exactly the same for the two lenses, the crop might not be from exactly the same area.

The corner at f/2.8 (click to enlarge):
The corner at f/4 (click to enlarge):
The corner at f/5.6 (click to enlarge):
Conclusion

Honestly, I was expecting the Olympus 50mm lens to perform best in terms of bokeh. This study, however, shows that the bokeh is somewhat smoother with the Lumix Leica 45mm. The highlight circles have harder edges with the Olympus 50mm.

Both lenses are certainly very capable, though.

Sunday, 16 May 2010

Cheap and simple macro soft box

When taking macro pictures, or pictures of fairly small objects in general, a common problem is to get the lightning right. More even lightning can be achieved by using a "soft box", essentially a contraption that spreads light from one (or a few) light sources over a larger area.

A very cheap and simple soft box is a transparent bucket, like this one:

Preferably, it should have as neutral density as possible. If it has some colour tint, the images will get the wrong white balance. It is of course possible to adjust the white balance later, especially if you're using RAW images, but it is better to have as correct colours as possible from the start.

When photographing the object, place it inside the bucket, with the light source on one side, or from the closed end, like this:

In this case, I used a Panasonic Lumix GH1, with an Olympus 50mm f/2 macro lens. This combination can only be focused manually, which is no problem for macro use.

The light source is simply the sun light coming from the window on the top side of the image. One could also have used a flash pointing towards the side of the bucket, however, an off camera TTL flash would have been preferable, which is probably not so common for people to have for this system.

Here is an example picture, taken with (left) and without (right) the softbox. As you can see, the softbox image has softer contrasts. Besides, the picture taken without the softbox has reflections from the window. The right image also has some shadows next too the feet, which you may need to edit out later.

I used ISO 100, f/5.6 for both images. The shutter speed was 1/3.2 second for the left image, and 1/5 second for the right image, since the softbox steals some light.

Here is another example image, showing a Pelikan M425 piston filler fountain pen. I used f/13 to achieve enough depth of field.