Mini comparison of macro lenses for micro 4/3

What if we take… and compare a couple of lenses? Not seriously, but at least minimally…let’s try!

Today’s article will focus on four lenses, three of which can shoot macro, and we will try to teach the fourth one to do so. Our test subjects will be:

1. Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 30mm F/3.5
2. Olympus Zuiko Digital 35mm F/3.5 (for 4/3 system with micro 4/3 adapter)
3. Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F/2.8
4. Olympus ED 40-150mm F/4.0-5.6

Unfortunately, I don’t have a full-fledged photo lab to compare the image quality of lenses, so we will test two parameters that may be of interest to those people who choose a lens from this list – the maximum magnification that the lens provides, and the shooting distance from which the lens can work.

The lenses on this list are the main and, by and large, the cheapest macro lenses on this system with autofocus. Two of them (30/3.5 and 60/2.8) can work in focus stacking mode on Olympus cameras (starting with the OMD E-M1 and E-M5-II and higher). Another one is a fairly high-quality lens for the previous generation system (by the way, on the E-M1, due to the phase autofocus in the camera, the lens has faster focusing than on other Panasonic cameras). The last lens is a telephoto zoom, which, thanks to the facing rings, allows you to shoot quite a macro. Let’s see what we got.

Test methodology

The test used a Panasonic Lumix GX7 camera, the light was from the side, the program mode was turned on. Manual focusing + focus peaking was used to focus. The focus height was measured using the horizon line. The object of the shooting was a 1 Ukrainian hryvnia coin measuring 25.9 mm (the maximum normal size of what was available with a sufficient amount of details). The reference point for shooting at maximum scale was two lines, which are visible in the picture

This allowed us to roughly compare the image we would get from different lenses in terms of frame composition. The size of the coin is presented in the photo below

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 30mm F/3.5

Despite its main drawback – too short a focusing distance (the lens literally pokes its nose into the subject), this is one of my favourite lenses. If you don’t need to shoot insects, but just a staged photo or photos of flowers, moss and similar trifles – this will be a very comfortable lens with the maximum possible zoom. It is difficult to shoot something living with it, and it is very convenient, due to any focusing distance, to shoot everything inanimate.

In the image obtained from this lens, we can see every scratch on the coin, every detail that was so carefully drawn. Even with my rather good eyesight, it is difficult to see the scribbles on the belt without a magnifier, which are here, albeit faintly, but visible. And what about the focusing distance?

The technique here was still quite accurate, but the distance of about 1.5-2 cm from the object speaks for itself. First of all, this direction of light was chosen for shooting precisely because otherwise one of the lenses would simply block the picture from light. Not much. That is why a protective lens is installed on the lens – so as not to scratch the lens glass itself.

The second example is taking a picture of a coin, where the entire object (2.59 cm) will be visible within the frame. Sometimes it is difficult to set up a tripod and focus on a small object, so there may be small errors. What is the distance between the lens and the object?

The distance has come close to 5 centimetres (excluding the protective lens). From this distance, it is quite possible to try to photograph a sloth grasshopper, which in length will be similar to the width of a coin. In the meantime, we move on to the next lens.

Olympus Zuiko Digital 35mm F/3.5

If it weren’t for the slightly different focal length, this lens could be safely called “grandfather”. But if you look closely at the photos, you can see that they differ not only in the system for which they were created and in age, but also in the image.

Although the details are drawn in a similar way, the previous lens has a macro ratio of 1:1.25, and this one has a standard value of 1:1 (for those who don’t know, this is the ratio of the object being photographed to the size of the matrix on which the shooting is taking place). Here we can make a reservation that this lens, after all, was originally intended for a larger matrix and is used through an adapter, but the result is somewhat different and it is visible even here.

The focusing distance has also increased to 2.5 cm, if you count to the filter, and almost 3 cm, if you count directly from the lens. The difference is not that big, but in real use it should be, as I personally saw.

If we step back a little, we can see that in terms of details, on a larger scale, they are more visible on this lens. Yes, yes, I know… I can be accused of being crooked-handed, but every time I focused, I took a screenshot, and this is where the focus ended up with the previous lens.

That is, the inscription was completely in focus there too. However, the result is the result.

The distance to the subject is 6 cm, so it is not much different from the previous lens. In a more understandable way, this can be rephrased as “if you are shooting objects over 2.5 cm, there is no particular difference which lens to use”. Well, not counting, of course, the faster focusing of the first lens tested.

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F/2.8

The further into the forest, the more…the focal length of the lens! Most macro photographers will say “well, 60 mm is something!” and I agree with them, but only partially. Most scenes that do not require any obvious distance from the subject can be shot with a lens with a focal length of 35 mm. For more predatory species like snakes, spiders,mosquitoes it is better to use a focal length of 100 and above so as not to disturb the subject of the shooting. Speaking for the secondary market, the cost of the Olympus 60/2.8 lens is approximately equal to the cost of all previous lenses and what will be further in the review. A natural question arises – are the capabilities and the picture that this lens will give that much better?

To my taste, the quality of the resulting image and details are about the same as the previous lens, and a slightly lower magnification gives not as clear details as was the case with the first lens I tested. But the main element of our study is the distance to the subject with such magnification. Did we manage to get very far away from the coin being photographed?

If you look at the title photo of the post, you might think something is wrong, because the promised minimum focusing distance for a 60mm lens is 19 cm. And that’s true, but the lens itself is long, and the measurement is taken from the plane of the camera’s matrix itself. As a result, we have a distance from the lens to the object of about 8.1 cm. This is certainly more than 3 times greater than the minimum distance with maximum magnification for the previous lens, but you still have to be quite close to the subject, which can scare it. Let’s move away a little

Here we see that the picture with the last pair of lenses is closer, in particular with the letters drawn. I was no less interested in the fact that most of the coin was in focus.

This lens has a certain advantage over its counterparts, but what about the focusing distance?

12.5 centimetres is already a very commendable result. For particularly timid subjects, this will be the distance at which they will eventually agree to let you in. For less cautious ones, 5.5 cm with the previous lens will probably be enough for the same size of shooting.

Olympus ED 40-150mm F/4.0-5.6

The choice of this lens was accidental, since I happened to have several autofocus macro rings from Meike (model MK P AF3A). They move the lens away from the matrix by 10 and 16 mm, respectively, thereby allowing you to reduce the focusing distance and increase the size of the object being photographed in relation to the matrix (in fact, this can be compared to using a magnifying glass to view any trifle). The lens itself is a classic ultrazoom, without a special aperture and with average image quality. If we talk about the cost of these rings and the lens on our market, then on the secondary market it will cost about $65. The kit gives us the opportunity to shoot macro, and in other cases using the lens as a zoom.

I’ll note right away that these rings not only reduce the focusing distance, but also remove the ability to focus to infinity, meaning that at a given focal length, the object will only be in focus for a small distance and nowhere else. This limits the use of this lens with rings on a permanent basis. But what do they give?

The focal length used in the first shot was 40mm. At this focal length, I was able to capture the subject at maximum magnification.

Here I encountered an effect that is difficult to explain with my level of knowledge, but it feels as if the lens has received harmful illumination due to the use of side light. Attempts to change the direction of the light did not give any results. At the same time, in the corners we can see the blurring of the image. And what about in the distance?

About 5.9 cm to the subject from the lens surface. Very good, but… the quality speaks for itself. Let’s move on to the next point

The quality didn’t get any better, maybe it can all be tweaked a bit in the editor, but I used in-camera JPEG, so the picture is what I get directly during the shooting.

11.2 centimetres from the lens surface. I should note that just in an attempt to take the last picture I had to tighten the focal length, which was 49 mm. In other cases, it was not possible to catch focus at the desired size of the object in the picture.

Additional materials

I was bothered by the blurriness in the last experiment. I decided to try it again using a better lens (in our case 60 mm). I got the following result with it

Essentially the same lighting. When shooting a subject lit by a table lamp, I got a slightly different result

It looks a little nicer, but there’s still a clear loss of detail, even despite enlarging the image more than the first subject had. A disastrous idea? How can I say that?

This picture is hardly a masterpiece, but it was taken at a focal length of 150 using two macro rings. It is unlikely that such a picture will make it into the rating of the best macro photos of the year, but it is quite possible to please yourself with a detailed image of the dead body. The entire cost of these rings is lower than that of a macro lens.

In dry residue

In the end, we got a completely expected result, which you should interpret in your own way, based on your desires and financial capabilities. Among the available macro lenses, there is also the Olympus ED 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 EZ. With certain software, it will also allow you to shoot focus stacking on certain cameras, which has a macro mode at a focal length of 50 mm with an aperture of about F/6 and a scale of 1:2, the cost of which is close to the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 30mm F/ 3.5, and … this will probably confuse you even more with the choice. But let’s put everything on the shelves

The cheapest option

Olympus ED 40-150mm F/4.0-5.6 (or any other with a focal length starting from 40 mm) + set of macro rings

The largest macro magnification

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 30mm F/3.5. It will give you a magnification of 1.25:1, and, not counting the perverted version with macro rings and a 60mm macro lens, will give maximum magnification for minimal money, plus I like the details in it more

The most versatile lens

I would call the Olympus ED 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 EZ because even though it didn’t make it into the review, my experience with it suggests that it’s a good whale lens, having spent a fortune on which you will get a wide angle of shooting, a macro lens, an electronic zoom, and the theoretical possibility of focus stacking on the Olympus OM-D E-M1 (in my memory the cheapest camera with this technology, which is so relevant for macro), and a plus to karma … no, the latter is not taken into account. But the lens is really good for unpretentious top-end users.

The most comfortable lens

Well… you already know who? Yes, yes, it’s the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F/2.8. It’s not a top-notch lens that will give you a picture that will be many times better than other options in proportion to the price difference, but it’s worth admitting. Its focusing distance is more comfortable. Plus, it has a higher aperture value. It lacks, except for the price that is about one and a half times lower, for me to recommend it to you for purchase.

The most famous Olympus Zuiko Digital 35 mm F/3.5

One lens, unfortunately, did not receive its own category. This is not due to the fact that it is bad. On the contrary, if you have a lens from the old 4/3 system, and manual focus mode is not alien to you, I would call it the best option for its price (autofocus on cameras without phase detection autofocus, in particular outside the OM-D E- M1, is weak). In general, another similar lens was the Olympus Zuiko Digital 50 mm f/2 ED Macro lens. Again, I did not talk about it because I did not have it, but perhaps it would have slightly changed my opinion, because there are rumors that it is a very good lens. It has the largest aperture, but at the same time the macro compression in it is slightly lower than 1:1, which makes it a fast alternative to the Olympus 12-50.

My choice

As a person who has come out of the woods, I will most likely choose 30/3.5+… there are many options. Either Panasonic 35-100 or Olympus 40-150 with macro rings, or some good manual lens from another system (I checked it on the GX7 – focus peaking, which allows you to comfortably focus on the object, works even with a manual lens from Pentax installed) at a distance of about 100mm and a macro magnification of 1:1. In all other cases, you can shoot from any distance with 30/3.5 without any problems, thereby getting, in some places, the greatest magnification, with good sharpness, average aperture, compact dimensions, and nimble autofocus regardless of the system (on Panasonic it is simply a fairy tale, although initially I wanted to get myself a 35/3.5 from the 4/3 system).

What do you think of these posts? Do they make sense with my level of “observer” and “writer”, or is it better not to continue? Share your opinion in the comments, it is very interesting to hear your point of view on this issue, as well as what choice you would make yourself 🙂

UPD Panasonic LUMIX G MACRO 30mm f/2.8 ASPH. MEGA OIS

I got my hands on a Panasonic 30/2.8, which I thought was a good comparison to the Olympus 30/3.5. I didn’t include it in the main test because I don’t remember exactly what the light was like then, so I decided to compare the two lenses separately.

First, a frame from Panasonic

and this is from Olympus

As you can see, in terms of quality they are about the same, the Panasonic manages to retain more detail than the other lenses on the list above. Let’s compare on another free example. This one from the Panasonic

And this is from Olympus

Although the Olympus has a larger magnification, the real difference is difficult to notice. Is the difference so important in general? The Panasonic has a slightly larger distance to the subject (10.5 cm versus 9.5 cm for the Olympus), which allows you to move away from the subject, albeit not much. Get more light and have a chance to get a sharper frame without smudging. The Panasonic lens feels more serious in terms of the body, the focus ring has a denser notch, the lens itself is heavier. It is also worth considering that the Panasonic has built-in stabilization, while the Olympus lens does not, although in reality I did not feel any obvious difference. Perhaps because I was shooting on the GX7, which has its own built-in stabilization. As for the actual shooting parameters, both last shots were taken in Program mode. The Panasonic shot had the parameters Shutter speed 1/60,

The cost of Panasonic and Olympus in America, on the same Ebay, is quite different. And here 30/3.5 costs around $110-120, and 30.2.8 from Panasonic is about $130-150. For a small surcharge we get a larger aperture, stabilization, better body construction, a slightly greater distance to the object and, at the same time, a slightly smaller scale, which still remains 1:1.

The Panasonic focuses quieter than the Olympus (although on the GX8, for some reason, there was a strange noise when focusing), they are about the same in terms of speed and focusing performance.

Which lens to choose based on these results? It’s up to you. For Olympus cameras, the best choice would probably be 30/3.5, for Panasonic’s, respectively, 30/2.8. Such things 🙂

Author: Sa Crea

Hellmin