Olympus 60 vs 30 Macros

This past weekend I was able to get out for some diving so I decided I wanted to try out my 60mm Macro on my Olympus EPL10 (See photos below). Conditions were pretty poor in terms of visibility even though there were only 6 divers in the area. I'm not too sure the 60mm macro is for me, the angle of view and the distance to subject was tough to manage with such poor visibility. Plus I haven't seen creatures small enough to justify the the 60mm, I'm looking to try out the 30mm macro in the near future. What are the groups thoughts on the Olympus 30mm macro? My favorite is the tube dwelling anemone, I just cant get enough of them.

Hi Dan,

The size of the object does not matter: both lenses have 1:1 magnification, i.e. a 17mm object will fill the long side of the frame. What is different is the working distance, that is, of course longer with the 60mm lens...

I do not have personal experience with the 30mm macro, but have both the Zuiko 60mm and the 45mm Panasonic macro. With the EM5II, that has contrast based AF, similar to your EPL-10, the 45mm Panasonic gives better AF performance, but with EM1II (has PDAF) both lenses work similar and o.k. I prefer to use the 60mm, because of the longer working distance that scares animals less, but only in very clear waters. I just returned from Egypt, where I was diving in the not so clear gulfes of Akabar and Suez (vis was 10-15m only). There I prefer the 45mm, as working distance is less and IQ is better in cloudy waters ...

Regarding you images, I would not take the macro lens for images 2,3,4 and 6. For them I prefer to use the standard zoom (Zuiko 12-40mm) behind a Zen DP-170. There I can zoom out as far as the animals allow (especially for 2,3 and 6 I would take 12mm), the images should be crisp clear and sharp, because of the short working distance and one could also include substantial amounts of background. I personally will not go for the 30mm lens: as I use macro, the distance is very short at high magnification, scaring animals and making lighting with flash difficult. At not so high magnification (as images 2,3,4, & 6), I find the standard 12-40mm zoom lens the better option...

Wolfgang

Hi Dan, 

I have both lenses, and would echo Wolfgang's findings on working distance and the challenges that poses- its working distance is so small you can't fit a diopter.  I find there is a difference in IQ - the 60mm is superior; the 30mm can suffer from a noticeable increase in aberration - but it still produces acceptable quality for my purposes in a crop. The example below might help - it's about a 50% crop of the original image, as I didn't want to stick my port or strobes right in the anemone. You can see some aberration in the right side anemone tentacles, (which corresponds to the edges of the image).  WD for this was about 15cm - and it was shot at f16 (which also contributes to the aberration - should be much less at wider apertures, but I don't have an example). It can be a challenge to get your strobes in tight  given the short working distance, but that does make you think about alternative lighting approaches, and subject selection.

There is a huge difference in the size of the front glass; maybe someone more optically savvy might have a view whether this has an impact on IQ.  

On the positive side, the 30mm feels more forgiving - it focusses reasonably quickly. I quite like it both for reasonably small stuff and fish portraits- for small stuff, the 60mm is great. 

Hope that helps,

Justin

Hey there Wolfgang,

2 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

What is different is the working distance, that is, of course longer with the 60mm lens...

Yes I agree, I think the shorter working distance of the 30mm will allow me to get closer. This would eliminate a lot of the "junk" floating in the water between me and the subject.  AM I thinking about working distance wrong in this context?

For reference I had my strobe in the Frankenstein position pointed back at me and I still have lots of backscatter in the images.

2 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

 

I just returned from Egypt, where I was diving in the not so clear gulfes of Akabar and Suez (vis was 10-15m only). 

So 10-15m is approximately 33-50ft, I cant remember a dive in a long time where I had that good of visibility. We are happy when we get 20ft or 6m.

2 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

Regarding you images, I would not take the macro lens for images 2,3,4 and 6. For them I prefer to use the standard zoom (Zuiko 12-40mm) behind a Zen DP-170. There I can zoom out as far as the animals allow (especially for 2,3 and 6 I would take 12mm), the images should be crisp clear and sharp, because of the short working distance and one could also include substantial amounts of background. I personally will not go for the 30mm lens: as I use macro, the distance is very short at high magnification, scaring animals and making lighting with flash difficult. At not so high magnification (as images 2,3,4, & 6), I find the standard 12-40mm zoom lens the better option...

Unfortunately, I am using the Olympus EPL10 inside the AOI housing. It has the PEN port on it and I can not use the 12-40, which would be sweet. I currently have the options of the Panasonic 8mm Fisheye, 14-14EZ, 60mm macro; I also have the 9-18 and 30mm macro (it was on sale so I ordered it last night) but I do not have a port for the 9-18 nor 30mm. I was planning to try to photograph nudibranch on this dive outing however one of the members in the dive group brought a friend who was not certified to the depths we anted to go so we had to change dive plans and I was stuck with my macro lens, it is what it is.

I have been on the fence about getting the AOI housing for the EM1-3 but I can not find a solid answer if the 12-40 or the 8mm f1.8 fisheye will fit in it. the EM1-3 housing is supposed to also have the PEN style port.

2 hours ago, JustinO said:

Hi Dan, 

I have both lenses, and would echo Wolfgang's findings on working distance and the challenges that poses- its working distance is so small you can't fit a diopter.  I find there is a difference in IQ - the 60mm is superior; the 30mm can suffer from a noticeable increase in aberration - but it still produces acceptable quality for my purposes in a crop. The example below might help - it's about a 50% crop of the original image, as I didn't want to stick my port or strobes right in the anemone. You can see some aberration in the right side anemone tentacles, (which corresponds to the edges of the image).  WD for this was about 15cm - and it was shot at f16 (which also contributes to the aberration - should be much less at wider apertures, but I don't have an example). It can be a challenge to get your strobes in tight  given the short working distance, but that does make you think about alternative lighting approaches, and subject selection.

There is a huge difference in the size of the front glass; maybe someone more optically savvy might have a view whether this has an impact on IQ.  

On the positive side, the 30mm feels more forgiving - it focusses reasonably quickly. I quite like it both for reasonably small stuff and fish portraits- for small stuff, the 60mm is great. 

Hope that helps,

Justin

Thanks for the info.  I ma just now learning macro in pretty turbid waters of Southern California.  I'm thinking the shorter working distances would be better for me.  I am on a quest to photograph the many nudibranch around here so getting close isn't an issue as long as the sea is forgiving.

I'm going to review Alex's book tonight to make sure I'm understanding working distance correctly.

I have the 60mm macro and also the Panasonic 30mm macro.  The Pany 30mm is every bit as sharp as the OLy 60mm and the AF is very snappy.  I consider the 30mm effectively a 1:2 lens, yes you can get 1:1 with it, but that is about 10 mm or so from the port glass.   Even at half life size it is a little challenging.

I shoot in temperate waters off Sydney, often the vis is in the range of 3-4m with plenty of particulates and I'll often use the 30mm there as it allows me to be closer to medium size subjects but still get reasonable images of larger nudis etc.  I also use the 12-40mm on occasions - it's the ideal lens for weedy sea dragons for example, but a bit short on magnification for smaller stuff.  It will focus just about on the port but the dome port gets in the way making hard to get that close in many situations.  SO to me the size of the subject makes quite a difference in lens selection. 

This weedy sea dragon was shot with the Pany 30mm macro, not really feasible to shoot with the 60mm, it's about 300mm long.  Also a Goniobranchus splendidus nudi which is about 50mm long - this image is a crop, about 70% of the frame.  The weedy is at f8 and the nudi at f10.

I rarely use the 60mm anymore as my Olympus 30mm is just so much easier to work with- much faster AF on both CF and PDAF bodies, a more practical focal length (for me), etc. In fact, I don't even pack the 60 for dive trips. It's not so much the focusing distance as it is the overall usability.  Although I shoot through the Oly macro port intended for both lenses, you can get a shorter AOI port dedicated to the 30 that reduces the overall form factor and allows you to get even closer than you can illuminate effectively with strobes.  

Love the 30- it's part of what I call my giggle trinity with the Olympus 8mm f1.8 and Olympus 300 f4- lenses that are so amazing and fun to use that they really get my creativity going.  Add in the price point, and you really don't have a lot to loose.

9 hours ago, Wapiti said:

I rarely use the 60mm anymore as my Olympus 30mm is just so much easier to work with- much faster AF on both CF and PDAF bodies, a more practical focal length (for me), etc. In fact, I don't even pack the 60 for dive trips. It's not so much the focusing distance as it is the overall usability.  Although I shoot through the Oly macro port intended for both lenses, you can get a shorter AOI port dedicated to the 30 that reduces the overall form factor and allows you to get even closer than you can illuminate effectively with strobes.  

Love the 30- it's part of what I call my giggle trinity with the Olympus 8mm f1.8 and Olympus 300 f4- lenses that are so amazing and fun to use that they really get my creativity going.  Add in the price point, and you really don't have a lot to loose.

Are you saying you use the longer port (FLP-02N (60mm macro port) or FLP-06 (included port with housing) + extensions ring) that is made for the 60mm while using the 30mm lens?  Do you notice any significant field of view issues? I was thinking of using the AOI FLP-06 (included port with housing) with the 34mm extension ring (its the set up I have) instead of buying another port (FLP-04) for the 30mm.

19 hours ago, Dann-Oh said:

Thanks for the info.  I ma just now learning macro in pretty turbid waters of Southern California.  I'm thinking the shorter working distances would be better for me.  I am on a quest to photograph the many nudibranch around here so getting close isn't an issue as long as the sea is forgiving.

 

I'm going to review Alex's book tonight to make sure I'm understanding working distance correctly.

I managed to find a few at wider apertures - f13. These are still crops, but show what the lens can do - still acceptable sharpness in both the moray portrait and the xmas tree worm. Still a little soft at the edges. Like others have said, at the price point it's a good lens. 

Super moray image, Justin! Good one.

As Wolfgang I own a Olympus 60 mm and a Panasonic 45mm (Previously on a Olympus EPL7, now on a OMD5 III). I also tried the Olympus 30mm once but I didn't like the working distance to be close to the port. Harder to light, larger chance to chase your subject away and larger chance to scratch your lens.

As Wolfgang the 45mm is my absolute favorite in less clear water.  The larger working distance of the 60mm makes it harder to work with,  there's a bigger chance that floating particles will influence the AF. And the same particles will influence your IQ.

23 hours ago, JustinO said:

I have both lenses, and would echo Wolfgang's findings on working distance and the challenges that poses- its working distance is so small you can't fit a diopter. 

I am going to have to disagree with you on that point.  I really like the 60mm with a SubSee +5 diopter for super macro shots.  The working distance does become very close, perhaps 50mm from the port glass, but still possible to light a subject with good technique.  That lens with a +10 diopter, however, was next to impossible.  Here are two examples - the pygmy was about 10mm tall, and the anemone fish eggs were probably less that half that size.  Both shot with the +5 diopter.  (Note these are compressed and fuzzy - the raw files are super sharp.) Then with a flip adapter, I swing the diopter out of the way and capture larger subjects like nudis, moray portraits, mantis shrimp, ocellaris, etc.  As for the AF, on an E-M1 mk II it was plenty fast and good enough to use CF+tracking.  I probably take the 60mm plus diopter on 90% of my dives. 

I also have both Olympus macro lenses, and also use the 60 when I'm not using the 12-40.  I use the 30 for bonfire/blackwater, but otherwise, for me, the 60 is a satisfactory combination of working distance, magnification, and IQ.  I do recall the 60 having a lot of focus hunt on an em5, but on the em1ii it does pretty well.  

I have only used the 30 with the (short) Macro port 45; I'd think that with the Macro port 65, which is about 3/4" longer, the distance from the nose of the 30 to the port glass would be enough to defeat the small magnification advantage afforded by the minuscule working distance of the 30.  To explore this, I put a camera with the 30 in a housing with the Macro port 65, and found (1) that the camera would focus on an object up against the glass, and (2) that the object in the resulting image was smaller than it was in the image generated by the 30 at its closest focus point.  Not scientific by any means, but it supported my thought that the working distance of the 30 is so short that unless you're willing to have the subject quite close to the glass, it's hard to take advantage of its macro capabilities, and of course the lighting obstacles are obvious. 

(Troporobo, I think JustinO was talking about the working distance on the 30, not the 60.)  

While some people seem to not want to mix brands, the Panasonic in my opinion is the best middle ground between both lenses, offering both enough working distance to get to 1:1 and also a workable distance for slightly larger stuff.

3 hours ago, JustinO said:

I managed to find a few at wider apertures - f13. These are still crops, but show what the lens can do - still acceptable sharpness in both the moray portrait and the xmas tree worm. Still a little soft at the edges. Like others have said, at the price point it's a good lens. 

 

Awe man, that is an amazing eel image.  I would like to try to capture a similar image this summer.

13 hours ago, Dann-Oh said:

Are you saying you use the longer port (FLP-02N (60mm macro port) or FLP-06 (included port with housing) + extensions ring) that is made for the 60mm while using the 30mm lens?  Do you notice any significant field of view issues? I was thinking of using the AOI FLP-06 (included port with housing) with the 34mm extension ring (its the set up I have) instead of buying another port (FLP-04) for the 30mm.

Hey Dann-

I use the Olympus PPO-EP03 macro port intended for OMD housings for both the 60 and 30 lenses (I'm shooting an EM-1 mkI in an Olympus housing).  I'm guessing you have the AOI housing for the EM-10?  If so, it uses the PEN housings so this exact port is a no go; I was just pointing out that I use the 30 in a port intended for the 60 with no field of view isues.  Yes, I loose the ability to get really close (and therefore into true macro 1:1 range), but it was the only option at the time before AOI released all their various ports. The FLP-06 looks like it's threaded to add a wet lens, presumably 67mm.  That is the case with the Olympus port, so if the FLP-06/ adapter combo is not super long it should work with the 30.  That said, I took a quick look at the AOI website, and they also offer a a 24mm adapter- that might work better and save you from having to buy another port if you really wanted to get in as close as possible.

Based on your sample photos the 30, IMO, should be just fine.  It's my default lens for Puget Sound night dives and Oregon dives where I know my viz is less than 6 ft.  Yes, diving in that low of viz is dumb but you gotta do what you gotta do to keep your gills wet.

14 hours ago, troporobo said:

I am going to have to disagree with you on that point.  I really like the 60mm with a SubSee +5 diopter for super macro shots.  The working distance does become very close, perhaps 50mm from the port glass, but still possible to light a subject with good technique.  That lens with a +10 diopter, however, was next to impossible.  Here are two examples - the pygmy was about 10mm tall, and the anemone fish eggs were probably less that half that size.  Both shot with the +5 diopter.  (Note these are compressed and fuzzy - the raw files are super sharp.) Then with a flip adapter, I swing the diopter out of the way and capture larger subjects like nudis, moray portraits, mantis shrimp, ocellaris, etc.  As for the AF, on an E-M1 mk II it was plenty fast and good enough to use CF+tracking.  I probably take the 60mm plus diopter on 90% of my dives. 

 

 

Yes, sorry, I wasn't clear - it's the WD of the Oly 30mm that is too small for a diopter. The 60mm with a diopter is of course a highly recommended set up...and I am just persuading myself to get a CMC 1...

12 hours ago, Dann-Oh said:

Awe man, that is an amazing eel image.  I would like to try to capture a similar image this summer.

Thanks! I used two strobes in cross lighting position, either side of, and slightly in front of the port about a foot apart. so the edge of the beam just lit up the face.

15 hours ago, TimG said:

Super moray image, Justin! Good one.

Thanks Tim! Love your arrow crabs, too! Those sponges and the blue sponges make wonderful backgrounds - I found a fireworm on one once which made a lovely colour contrast.  

Wapiti,

9 hours ago, Wapiti said:

I'm guessing you have the AOI housing for the EM-10?  If so, it uses the PEN housings so this exact port is a no go; I was just pointing out that I use the 30 in a port intended for the 60 with no field of view issues. 

Close, I am using the Oly EPL10 inside the AOI housing and it does indeed use the PEN sized ports.  

9 hours ago, Wapiti said:

The FLP-06 looks like it's threaded to add a wet lens, presumably 67mm.  That is the case with the Olympus port, so if the FLP-06/ adapter combo is not super long it should work with the 30.  That said, I took a quick look at the AOI website, and they also offer a a 24mm adapter- that might work better and save you from having to buy another port if you really wanted to get in as close as possible.

Yes the FLP-06 has a 67mm thread on the front of it. I will be tying out the Oly 30mm macro behind the port for the 60mm just to see if I like the lens.  I might then shell out for the 24mm adapter if I do like the lens, however Im not yet into the super macro stuff.

9 hours ago, Wapiti said:

Based on your sample photos the 30, IMO, should be just fine.  It's my default lens for Puget Sound night dives and Oregon dives where I know my viz is less than 6 ft.  Yes, diving in that low of viz is dumb but you gotta do what you gotta do to keep your gills wet.

I totally know what you mean Puget Sound is on my list of destinations to visit, as well as Vancouver Island.  I really want to see and photograph the Pacific Wolf Eels.  This past weekend I was beach diving in conditions that were 2-4 ft viz, not fun but it was great training on how to trust your compass.