Macro and/or wide-angle lens (1 Viewer)

I'm not really sure what I'm after and would appreciate a little help from those who know about these things, please.

Using my Panasonic G3, I'd like to get photos of butterflies, plants, insects and so on. I'm currently using my 100-300mm lens (standing minimum focus distance of 1.5m away and hoping for the best)! I also have the kit lens 14-42mm, which is rubbish compared to the results I get with the 100-300mm zoom. I think what I'm after is a macro lens?

I also want to take landscape photos. I currently use the kit lens for this at 14mm (28mm, 35mm film equivalent). These are ok but, when zoomed in, the resolution isn't good. I'd like a better lens.

I guess my question is, would the 14mm prime do both jobs? Are there better options? Should I consider the 19mm f2.8 Sigma prime, which has good reviews and is affordable, but I've no idea if it'll do a better job than my kit lens?

Would appreciate any help.
Thanks
Hobbes

For macro work, there is the 45 Pana/Leica and the 60 mm Oly lens. Those are both (as you will notice) in the short tele range - I personally cannot compare with the 100-300 as I only have the latter.

Landscape lens: I would probably go for a prime but not sure which one (not a genre I really do).

Niels

njlarsen said:

For macro work, there is the 45 Pana/Leica and the 60 mm Oly lens. Those are both (as you will notice) in the short tele range - I personally cannot compare with the 100-300 as I only have the latter.

Landscape lens: I would probably go for a prime but not sure which one (not a genre I really do).

Niels

Click to expand...

Thanks Niels. I'd not heard of either of those macro lenses so I'll look into them.

No worries re: the landscape lens. Hopefully someone else will have experience of that. :t:

Hobbes

njlarsen said:

For macro work, there is the 45 Pana/Leica and the 60 mm Oly lens. Those are both (as you will notice) in the short tele range - I personally cannot compare with the 100-300 as I only have the latter.

<snip>

Niels

Click to expand...

Hi Niels
Just coming back to this, do you own the Oly 60mm? If so, how do you get on with the lack of image stabilisation on your GH2?
Thanks
Hobbes

Steve Huff has a nice review of the Oly http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/11/28/the-olympus-ed-60mm-f2-8-macro-lens-review-for-micro-43-from-a-guy-who-never-shoots-macro/ I know that the Oly is a true macro which is useful if you are into butterflys, reptile faces, bugs etc, though I am still using my 35 & 50 mm Oly 4/3 macros and a 105 Sigma via an adaptor.

For landscape it depends on what you have in mind, I know landscape photographers who use anything from extreme wide to the opposite in telephotos depending on the landscape you want to take.

As you are using Panasonic (I have a G5 alongside my OMD) I would recommend a tripod as it will have a marked effect on sharpness and many primes don't have built in OIS for you. Personally I switch off image stabilisation and just use the tripod wherever possible anyway. I find it quite difficult holding the Pana steady compared to the Oly - probably something to do with my hands.

Read a few Steve Huff and other photographers bloggs when thinking about a lens, these guys are interested in results - not so much technology.

Reviews of your kit lens - typically http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-14-42mm-f-3-5-5-6-micro-four-thirds-zoom-lens-review-17551 or http://www.photozone.de/m43/844-panasonic1442f3556ii?start=1 are quite complimentary.

While you will certainly get better resolution from some of the prime lenses available, not everyone gets the startling change they are hoping for. The most requested landscape I ever shot was on an ancient Oly E-500 with a kit lens at 38 mm (76mm 35mm equiv) of a harvest field with a hillside in the background. ISO 100, f 7.1, shutter speed 1/250, from a muddy ditch and a Manfrotto tripod. So it isn't just down to the kit.

N.B. For macro I just about got away with a slo worm's head with no IS if I brace my elbows on the ground - a bit like prone rifle shooting, and using the eye level finder braced against my head on a fine day. Actually best shot was with the rear screen flipped up (E-620 - 35mm macro), manually focussing with my wrists with forearms on the ground.

Also N.B. I am currently trying to get significantly sharper images by using a Nikon D5200 APSC body (24 megapixels) and a 35mm prime of excellent review and so far been disapointed, I am sure it just needs me to learn a new technique for Nikon. Currently trying the new 25mm on the front of an M5 results suggest I may ditch the Nikon!

I have both the Panasonic 100-300mm and the Olympus 60mm but I don't have a Panasonic body, only the Olympus E-M5, so I can't comment on using anything like the G3 from first-hand experience.

Does your G3 have an attached EVF, Hobbes? Using one makes it similar to a DSLR in use and, in my opinion gives a much steadier hold on the camera as opposed to using the rear screen with the camera at arms' length. Even IS can't fully compensate for this and can even make you a bit 'lazy' if you're not careful.

For a number of years I have used a Canon DSLR - either a 20D or 40D - with both a Sigma 400mm APO/Macro and a Sigma 50mm Macro lens. For convenience the first lens I use is most often the 400mm (it's been the one on the camera as 'default' and it's possible to get a 'long-range' shot of a butterfly, etc., before moving in closer with the 50mm). If you check out my gallery here on BF, you'll see that most of the butterfly/dragonfly shots have indeed been taken with the 400mm. I think I must have developed a good technique over time as most of the shots have been hand-held (with no IS to help) and the fact that these subjects are usually best in bright conditions shutter speeds haven't posed a great problem.

In theory, when I moved to a m4/3rds system the 100-300mm should have given me something very similar to the 400mm - on Canon the focal length is equivalent to 640mm and the minimum focus distance is 1.6m. However, I've not yet got anything as good with the Pana lens - probably I haven't used it enough to get the best from it, but the shortest focus distance of the longest end of a 'consumer level' zoom lens isn't going to be as good technically as a prime lens with apochromatic construction. Having said that, the best shots that I've achieved with the Pana are fine for their purpose.

Using the 100-300/400mm from a comfortable distance does allow you to adopt a comfortable stance and moving in close with a shorter lens can mean you have to adapt your stance to suit the subject and I must say that I got fewer 'keepers' with the 50mm than the 400mm for this very reason - for the best shots there sometimes is no other alternative to lying down on a bed of thistles or nettles or something 'orrible!

So, to the 60mm - anyone viewing another m4/3rds thread here may have noted that it is very easy to inadvertantly set the image-stabiliser on the Olympus cameras like the E-M5 to 'off' without realising it and thus assume that your lens isn't quite as good as you think - very slight movement can just take the 'edge' off the lens sharpness and lead you to downgrade your opinion of that lens. Since making sure my IS is switched on, I have to say that my 60mm has shown itself to be a real 'stunner' for image sharpness, just as the test reports say it should be. So, no image stabilisation on the Panasonic body means the 45mm Leica/Panasonic lens may be the better bet, but if you can use the 60mm with care, then I can thoroughly recommend it - but the (expensive!) bespoke 'sliding' lenshood is really an essential extra as the front element is very close to the front of the lens and prone to damage or water droplets from any wet grass, etc., that you may encounter when crawling up to a mini-subject. Although the lens is quite long, this is because it is weather-sealed and focusses internally.

I'm very interested in Iveljay's last comment as the new 25mm lens is also on my 'short-list' for general use including landscapes.

Hobbes2 said:

Hi Niels
Just coming back to this, do you own the Oly 60mm? If so, how do you get on with the lack of image stabilisation on your GH2?
Thanks
Hobbes

Click to expand...

Hobbes, no the only lens of the three that I own is the 100-300. If I were to get my hands on the Oly 60 mm, I would make sure that I never shoot slower than 1/300, and expect that I could handhold a 60 mm without IS at that speed (my first film SLR did not have any IS). That will in some instances necessitate high iso, so I would make sure to shoot in raw and have a good program to clean it up afterwards. On my GH2 I allow iso up to 3200, and I dream about one of the newer cameras (GH4 or OM1) where I would be able to go 1-2 stops higher.

Obviously a tripod would help if you have one, but setting it up would take time, and some targets would be long gone before you were done. Secondly, physical support takes away your shake but not movements of the target.

Niels

The Oly 25mm is a little beauty (and it actually comes with a round lens hood in the box!), it balances nicely on an M5 and is likely to be a fixture as I can shoot much of my landscape work with this. It also focusses down to 25 cm which comes in very useful.

My G5 seems to live with the excellent Panny 20mm Mk 1 prime, I got the G5 'free' in a deal in case you are wondering why the duplication. The Oly seems to have more 'zing' to it but this may be wishful thinking.

Many of my best film landscapes were shot on a 1953 Leica and 50mm combination (sounds posh but I got them cheaply as they were old & ratty).

At the wide end I tend to use the Oly 9-18mm zoom a lot, remember IS is less important for wide angle. If you live in a hilly area than going very wide for landscapes works as you can always stick a hill in the back to get rid of all that sky, but in East Anglia longer lenses needed a good sunset or cloud formation (chocolate box style), or a good lake for foreground.

Before you invest in a prime - look at the Exif data for all your existing landscapes and work out what you will use most.

I agree with Neils on macro subject movement, which is why some folks have been known to cheat, I have a ring flash which sometimes helps, both for camera shake and fast moving bugs, but is too big and heavy for easy use on m4/3 really.

The tripod is mainly for landscape which tends to stay put.

Hobbes2 said:

Hi Niels
Just coming back to this, do you own the Oly 60mm? If so, how do you get on with the lack of image stabilisation on your GH2?
Thanks
Hobbes

Click to expand...

i have it Hobbes and i have used it here without the IBIS of my EPL5 as i forgot to turn it on.

and also here, but with the digital TC on.

and if you like i can send you some other shot for my little 2 years old niece.

Thank you very much Adey, Niels and iveljay for taking the time to write such comprehensive and helpful replies. There's a lot for me to think about, including perhaps thinking more longer term about purchasing the Olympus body for macro work with the 60mm lens.

In terms of using the 100-300mm for macro-style shots, this shot of the Brimstone (http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/383576/ppuser/79041) is probably representative of the best I can get out of it. I did try photographing a Red-tailed Bumblebee yesterday but it was just too small and too distant (1.5 metres) to get satisfactory results. So, I think anything bigger than a bee is do-able, sort of.

I tend to shoot at 14mm with 14-42mm zoom for most landscape shots which would suggest I am looking for a prime that's around 14mm. That was why I was leaning towards the 19mm f2.8 (affordable) sigma lens.

Adey, yes, the G3 has an EVF which I use unless I am taking shots very low down or high up, in which case, I use the rear screen.

I shall do a little more research.
Thanks again
Hobbes

ammadoux said:

i have it Hobbes and i have used it here without the IBIS of my EPL5 as i forgot to turn it on.

and also here, but with the digital TC on.

and if you like i can send you some other shot for my little 2 years old niece.

Click to expand...

Hi Doux
Wow, that shot is lovely! Mmm…maybe I could use the Oly 60mm on my Panasonic G3. I am getting seriously tempted now
Thanks :t:
Hobbes

Just adding a note to this thread in case it's helpful for others in the future.

With the Panasonic DMC-G3 body, the choice of macro lens isn't straightforward (due to no IBIS). So, do I risk getting the less expensive Olympus 60mm f2.8 and hope that I can find ways of using it without any electronic stabilisation? Or, do I go for the Panasonic 45mm f2.8 with OIS but pay £180 for the privilege?! Reviews seem to be good for both lenses. Some favour the Olympus, others say there's not much between them. Another BF member has put some samples up using the Panasonic 45mm, which look great (http://paultavares.smugmug.com/Equipment-Sample-Images/Macro/i-SJqhhRP).

If the lenses were the same price, I'd get the Panasonic for the OIS. More thinking required.
Hobbes

From the review at photozone: http://www.photozone.de/m43/781-oly6028?start=2

The question of the day is whether to prefer the Olympus M.Zuiko 60mm f/2.8 ED macro over the Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 ASPH OIS ? As far as the key aspects is concerned the Leica lens may be a tad sharper whereas the M.Zuiko has a slight edge on the bokeh side. The choice is yours.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, the sample images in this review was with a Pana GX1 camera

Niels

njlarsen said:

From the review at photozone: http://www.photozone.de/m43/781-oly6028?start=2


Interestingly, the sample images in this review was with a Pana GX1 camera

Niels

Click to expand...

That is interesting, thanks Niels. Maybe he used a tripod - it doesn't say in the article.