diopter or teleconverter

I would like to do some real macrostuf, but my 50 mm macro (Olympus) is not good enough. What is better, a diopter or an teleconverter. Al I want is to get the subjects bigger on my picture. I don't need to be farther or closer to the subject.

I hope someone give me my solution once and forever.

A teleconverter will make the subject bigger at the same distance; this is probably what you're looking for. A diopter will let you focus closer to the subject.

thns Herbco.

Yes that's what Iam looking for. Iam now working with the 50mm macro and considering if I will buy an teleconverter or the 105mm macro from sigma. A friend of my told me that with that lens I will have 2:1. Is this true. I don't understand much about this stuff

105mm is still 1:1, but you can fill the frame with your subject from further away.. Better for shy fish etc.

if you want to go real macro, get the 105 and a 2x TC as well as a port extension

What Herbko said: To be specific a teleconverter lengthens the focal length of the lens (making things bigger) whereas a dioptre shortens the focal length making the lens to image plane longer for that new focal length and enabling you to focus closer.

I'm not sure about the magnification for the 105 when used on an Olympus body. The 4/3rds cameras have a 2x crop factor, so if the 105 is 1:1 on film, it will be 2:1 (35mm equivalent) on the Olympus.

Cheers

James

I'm not sure about the magnification for the 105 when used on an Olympus body. The 4/3rds cameras have a 2x crop factor, so if the 105 is 1:1 on film, it will be 2:1 (35mm equivalent) on the Olympus.

 

Cheers

James

Right, i forgot about that, someone told me that a couple weeks back (the 2x crop) i was shocked to hear that to be honest...

ok, thnx, so my friend was right. I think it's the best thing to buy the 105 mm macro.

what if I want more macro (or micro-photography). Is the best thing than an teleconverter or an close-up lens. I suggest that they both do the same....

what is the difference in quality?

For the sensor size in your camera, a 105mm would only be good for very smaller subjects. If you fit anything bigger than 3 to 4 inches in that frame you'll be too far away to get a really good shot. A 50mm is more versatile, you can use it on a wider range of subjects. Add a teleconverter to it when you want to shoot something very small.

I'm not sure about the magnification for the 105 when used on an Olympus body. The 4/3rds cameras have a 2x crop factor, so if the 105 is 1:1 on film, it will be 2:1 (35mm equivalent) on the Olympus.

 

Cheers

James

I think this is wrong . A 105mm 1:1 lens in film becomes a 210mm 1:1 lens. Same thing with, for example, nikon 60mm 1:1 that becomes (for nikon cameras with 1.5x crop factor) a 90 mm but still a 1:1 lens.

I have a 2x teleconverter and I am happy with it. The advantage with TCs is that you can still focus to infinity (with diopters it gets reduced to about 1m or less depending on the lens); the disadvantage is that you lose 2 stops of light and focus speed.

I think this is wrong wink.gif . A 105mm 1:1 lens in film becomes a 210mm 1:1 lens. Same thing with, for example, nikon 60mm 1:1 that becomes (for nikon cameras with 1.5x crop factor) a 90 mm but still a 1:1 lens.

The 105 mm macro on the Olympus sensor will remain a 105 mm 1:1 macro lens. But since the size of the sensor is only 25 % of an 35 mm film the maximum minimum object size will be 17.5 mm *13.25 mm, whereas this would be 35mm * 24 mm on film. Sure the lens will behave like a 210 mm on a Olympus camera, but the minimum focus distance remains the same. So equivalent to 35 mm, the reproduction ratio will be 2:1 on a Olympus body.

For the sensor size in your camera, a 105mm would only be good for very smaller subjects. If you fit anything bigger than 3 to 4 inches in that frame you'll be too far away to get a really good shot. A 50mm is more versatile, you can use it on a wider range of subjects. Add a teleconverter to it when you want to shoot something very small.

The Olympus 50 mm macro lens is only 1:2 and with a 1.4X teleconverter (2X isn't available for Oly) you'll only have approx 1: 1.4, at the expense of one or two stops (on 35 mm equivalent it would become 1.4:1) . So i adviced Karin to get a 105mm f/2.8 and get instant (equivalent) 2:1 for the same price as an 1.4x Olympus converter, although i'm affraid the 105 mm will be a touch lens to shoot.

cheers, udo

The way I understand it is this:

The lens is the same 105mm either way so when we talk about a crop factor of 2x is because the sensor only takes a part of the image equivalent to having a 210mm (narrower angle). The rest remains (minimum focus distance, etc..) the same so reproduction factor is still 1:1.

I have a 105mm macro and a cropped 1.5x camera and I can´t get 1.5:1 repro ratio because I get a smaller part of the subject over an also smaller sensor evening things out....

Hi David,

If you take an image with your 105 of a ruler at closest focus on your DX camera, you'll see that you can shoot 24 mm at once (the width of your DX sensor). If you shoot with the same lens the same ruler on film you would see 36 mm in one picture (width of the film). So that's why you can say that the reproduction ratio of the 105VR on a DX format sensor will become 1.5:1 equivalent to film. Just try it once at home and you'll be convinced...

cheers, Udo

Karin,

What camera are you shooting now? You used to shoot a 5050 Zoom right? I see everyone is assuming you are using an Olympus FourThirds SLR. Is that right? If so, which 50mm are you using? It'll help us advise if we're sure of your situation.

Martyn

The way I understand it is this:

 

The lens is the same 105mm either way so when we talk about a crop factor of 2x is because the sensor only takes a part of the image equivalent to having a 210mm (narrower angle). The rest remains (minimum focus distance, etc..) the same so reproduction factor is still 1:1.

 

I have a 105mm macro and a cropped 1.5x camera and I can´t get 1.5:1 repro ratio because I get a smaller part of the subject over an also smaller sensor evening things out....

UGGG! Are we back to this stupid debate? When James says "35mm equivalent" he means that you would fill the frame with an object the same size as an object on a 35mm film camera at 2:1. Sure the reproduction ratio is still 1:1. But who cares? The point is that you can get frame filling photos of objects half the size of objects with a 35mm film camera and have the same minimum focus distance too. With yours or my Nikon we can get the frame filling shots of objects 2/3 the size of a film camera. This is a very good thing.

Kaarlin,

At this time you have three three options for macro lenses using any of the Olympus 4/3'rds cameras (I.E. E-1, E-300, E-330, E-400 & E-500).

#1 Olympus 50 mm F-2 macro is a 1:2 lens or 1:1 equivalent in 35 mm terms (36mm x 24 mm film or digital sensor). Angle of view for the 50 mm is 24 degrees, the same as the 100/105 on a 35 mm film/sensor or a 60 mm on a 1.5/1.6 sensor.

#2 Olympus 35 mm macro F 3.5 which is a 1:1 lens or 2:1 (twice life size in 35 mm terms).

# 3 Sigma 105 mm F 2.8 macro which is 1:1 in 35 mm terms or 2:1 when mounted on an Olympus DSLR.

The Olympus 1.4 teleconverter will make the Olympus 50 mm an F 2.8 lens with a 1.4:1 35 mm equivalent. It will also make the Olympus 35 mm an F 4.5 lens at 2.8:1 in 35 mm terms and allow the lens to focus at about the same distance as the Olympus 50 mm macro.

The Olympus 35 mm is around $200.00 making it the lowest in terms of cost to get to twice life size in 35 mm terms. However without the teleconverter the 35 mm focuses so close to the dome port it is not very useful. The 50 mm works great with or without the teleconverter and can be used with an inside or outside diopter, but once again focus distance is reduced.

The Sigma 105 mm extends the working distance but can not be shifted between manual and AF mode while in a housing.

I would also look for Olympus to release at least two new camera bodies and several new lenses at PMA in March 2007, Olympus has planned a 90/100 mm macro for some time now and it may appear during PMA.

The Olympus 14 to 54 mm is also a very useful lens with a 35 mm equivalent of 28 mm to 108 mm and 1:1.1 in 35 mm terms on the long end.

Phil Rudin

Karin,

 

What camera are you shooting now? You used to shoot a 5050 Zoom right? I see everyone is assuming you are using an Olympus FourThirds SLR. Is that right? If so, which 50mm are you using? It'll help us advise if we're sure of your situation.

 

Martyn

Hello Martyn,

yes indeed, I was shooting with the 5050. Sinds last year I work with the Olympus E300 in an UK housing. I use the 50mm 1:2.0 Macrolens.

After al these wise answers I consider to buy the Sigma 105mm macro. Unfortunatly I cant wait until the PMA in March while I will be in Raja Ampat in february. That's the reason I want to make a good descision....

UGGG! Are we back to this stupid debate? When James says "35mm equivalent" he means that you would fill the frame with an object the same size as an object on a 35mm film camera at 2:1. Sure the reproduction ratio is still 1:1. But who cares? The point is that you can get frame filling photos of objects half the size of objects with a 35mm film camera and have the same minimum focus distance too. With yours or my Nikon we can get the frame filling shots of objects 2/3 the size of a film camera. This is a very good thing.

Oh! UWphotoNewbie, Lord of Wetpixel, please excuse us worms for discussing stupid things!

There may be one of your sheep out there who cares about it!!

Oh! UWphotoNewbie, Lord of Wetpixel, please excuse us worms for discussing stupid things!

There may be one of your sheep out there who cares about it!!

Let's try to get along.

UWphotoNewbie has a point that the subject "what 1:1 really means" has been rehashed lots and lots of times on these forums, and so too has the subject of "whether having a smaller higher pixel density sensor is a net win". Perhaps he would like one of these sensors

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06110801sharp12mpccd.asp

in place of his current one. Think of the tiny subjects that can resolve.

just bought the 105mm macro. Everybody, thnx for the advices you gave!