I was using it today, Vis was quite ordinary with plenty of particles, shooting a nudi about 80mm long, where I would usually think twice about attaching the MFO3, but getting in closer made a big difference in particles in the images. Focus is indeed quite snappy.

22 hours ago, françois said:

ah yes ! , many thanks , i will think to that more seriously :)

Follow us for more useful tips on how to waste your money 😁

36 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

Follow us for more useful tips on how to waste your money 😁

For sure we are the best for that.

😁

I was toying around today (dry) with the Oly 12-50 EZ lens. Disappointed to find out that I can trigger the extreme zoom positions from a camera button but NOT the macro mode. Nauticam has a port for that, but none for the plastic housing I have. Why, Olympus…. ?

But then… I wonder: If I manually push it into Macro mode and then place it in the housing, would it not be similar to the 60 mm + MFO3 combo discussed here? I know the image quality will not be the same, but in practical terms. On land the lens can focus out to something like 1.2 m in macro mode. And of course, the MFO 3 can be taken off for stronger macro, which would require a diopter with the 12-50.

But considering the price… any opinions?

I just used a diopter on that lens rather than the "macro" mode, worked better for me.

I suppose that was Olympus’ intention and it follows the theme of kit-lens + wet diopter for general purpose dives.

The question has been raised before on this thread more or less - why should an MFT shooter buy the MFO3 rather than one of the 45 or 30 mm macro lenses? Any of those are cheaper than the MFO3, so there must be another reason than simple mathematics of focal length. Is it AF speed? Correction of flat port optical issues?

[edit: the 45 mm is about the same price as the MFO3 when bought new, sorry.]

The 12-50 in its macro setting is perhaps another option, with its own set of compromises (which we should not discuss in this post, I think). For the record and based on a quick test in air: @50 mm with a +5 diopter is about the same field of view as the macro mode, add the same diopter to that and it gives about twice the magnification. So it does make a difference whether you switch it to macro before the dive.

Edited Sunday at 02:49 PM3 days by Klaus
Fact correction

2 hours ago, Klaus said:

The question has been raised before on this thread more or less - why should an MFT shooter buy the MFO3 rather than one of the 45 or 30 mm macro lenses?

Just to have two focal lens on a flip in the same dive. Otherwise the Pana 30mm is perfect.

You are right and that is what I could find on other posts about it here as well, sorry for doubling this. So « two lens options » are 60 mm +/- MFO3 but also 45 mm +/- diopter. The difference is that the 60 mm without wetlens gives a longer working distance than the 45 mm with a +5 diopter, right?

Edit:

With the pana 45 or 30 one actually doesn't need the diopter up to 1:1, it's only if I use the 12-50 in macro mode that I would need it for something approaching 1:1.

It's all about the working distance one has for the high-mag shots. Think I finally got it.

Edited Sunday at 06:13 PM3 days by Klaus
second thought

2 hours ago, Davide DB said:

Just to have two focal lens on a flip in the same dive. Otherwise the Pana 30mm is perfect.

Although not everybody agrees, I prefer the Pana 45mm over the 30mm. The working distance is far much better and I have no AF issues for macro.

35 minutes ago, Floris Bennema said:

Although not everybody agrees, I prefer the Pana 45mm over the 30mm. The working distance is far much better and I have no AF issues for macro.

I should say first that I only shoot video.

I have the 45mm and even if the quality is stellar, it's one of the slowest lens I tried on M43 (maybe the old 20mm was worse).

Once they lent me the 30mm and it seemed faster than the 45mm to me.

The flaw that everyone blames on the 30mm is that it reaches maximum magnification practically on the glass of the port.

However, it can also be a false problem if you do not necessarily look for maximum magnification. In the end it depends on the type of environment and critters.

1 hour ago, Floris Bennema said:

Although not everybody agrees, I prefer the Pana 45mm over the 30mm. The working distance is far much better and I have no AF issues for macro.

I think the IQ of the 45 is the best of all the macro options, but in Black Water it misses lots of shots trying to focus. It is probably my most used lens.

I have not used the MFO3, however the longer length should be easier to light than the 30mm.

But that also come with a lot more bulk.

The 30mm can also be used with the MWL-1 or Weefine equivalent which is a very versatile set-up (as can 12-50).

16 hours ago, Davide DB said:

Just to have two focal lens on a flip in the same dive. Otherwise the Pana 30mm is perfect.

Let's agree to disagree :-)

16 hours ago, Klaus said:

You are right and that is what I could find on other posts about it here as well, sorry for doubling this. So « two lens options » are 60 mm +/- MFO3 but also 45 mm +/- diopter. The difference is that the 60 mm without wetlens gives a longer working distance than the 45 mm with a +5 diopter, right?

Edit:

With the pana 45 or 30 one actually doesn't need the diopter up to 1:1, it's only if I use the 12-50 in macro mode that I would need it for something approaching 1:1.

It's all about the working distance one has for the high-mag shots. Think I finally got it.

The point of the MFO3 with 60mm for me is that if a larger subject comes by i can shoot it without backing way up. The 60mm works quite well for small stuff. The MFO3 gives about a 35-37mm macro, the 30mm is not a substitute as even though it is 1:1 this is achieved about 10mm from the port glass. I've used the Pany 30mm and while it's nice particularly with slightly larger subjects the practical limit IMO is about 0.5x as it gets hard to light if you get any closer. On my local dive site the size range is extreme, from the 400mm long weedy sea dragon down to 10mm nudis and tiny pygmy pipe horses. The pipe horses sway in the surge and for me anything shorter than the 60mm is too limiting on approach angles to shoot them with decent magnification.

For me the 45mm is a similar argument, it gets 1:1 and working distance is a bit shorter but acceptable, but woerking distance gets too short with a diopter - but for me if I don't need one on the 60mm , I certainly don't on the 45mm. But you can add the MFO3 to the 45mm and get something like a 26mm close focus macro lens for even wider fields.