Advice for macro converter

30 minutes ago, makar0n said:

Hmm other than the CMC/larger subject/murky water, would you say you have any preference between the 45 and 60 ?
Read all the topics I could find around here but seems in general its 50/50 sort of... and I have so far only used 45.

Curious as I am in the middle of "simplifying" setup and switching to WWL, and was planning to get a 20mm extension thingie, for an existing 45 port, but I am thinking if I will actually use both lenses sufficiently, i.e. if it won't end up to be the case where I am using 60 all the time, in which case getting 30mm and stuffing that on 35 port could be better option. And one less port to carry around

Hi Makar0n,

The preference is, of course, personal and individual, but I prefer the 60mm lens (when visibility allows)). This is because it gives the longer working distance, important for almost all critters. The 45mm has its advantage when murky water/larger subjects (but I personally never go a priori for larger subjects with a macro lens, but use the 12-40mm standard zoom&domeport for this purpose and the results have clearly better IQ; therefore larger subjects are never an indication to take a macro lens for me). CMC-1 works with both lenses and with both the working distance is small (even a little bit smaller with 45mm). Not to forget the 45mm has IS, also nice to have...

 My wife prefers the 45mm macro, this is because it is easier to find subjects in the viewfinder, as also Chris says...

I think the new 90mm macro goes into the same direction as the 60mm, but much further and with less comprimise regarding murky waters/larger subjects. It even gives 2x magnification, the same as 60mm+CMC-1 (CMC can still be added and then you get more...).This would have been my macro lens of choice, if I would have stayed with MFT. 45mm plus 90mm is certainly the best repertoire for macro and highly complementary, but you need to lugg around an additional big lens + separate dedicated port (with 60mm it is just a small lens and a small 20mm N85 extension, but there is a lot more of overlap between 45mm and 60mm). As always, no free lunch...

Wolfgang

I have read several times how difficult it is to centre the subject with a snoot without having a built-in guide light...

Here, I would like to patent a macro lens with a built-in guide light exactly in the centre that would allow me to see where the hell I am pointing the lens.

Follow me for more macro tips!

1 hour ago, Architeuthis said:

Hi Makar0n,

The preference is, of course, personal and individual, but I prefer the 60mm lens (when visibility allows)). This is because it gives the longer working distance, important for almost all critters. The 45mm has its advantage when murky water/larger subjects (but I personally never go a priori for larger subjects with a macro lens, but use the 12-40mm standard zoom&domeport for this purpose and the results have clearly better IQ; therefore larger subjects are never an indication to take a macro lens for me). CMC-1 works with both lenses and with both the working distance is small (even a little bit smaller with 45mm). Not to forget the 45mm has IS, also nice to have...

 My wife prefers the 45mm macro, this is because it is easier to find subjects in the viewfinder, as also Chris says...

I think the new 90mm macro goes into the same direction as the 60mm, but much further and with less comprimise regarding murky waters/larger subjects. It even gives 2x magnification, the same as 60mm+CMC-1 (CMC can still be added and then you get more...).This would have been my macro lens of choice, if I would have stayed with MFT. 45mm plus 90mm is certainly the best repertoire for macro and highly complementary, but you need to lugg around an additional big lens + separate dedicated port (with 60mm it is just a small lens and a small 20mm N85 extension, but there is a lot more of overlap between 45mm and 60mm). As always, no free lunch...

 

Wolfgang

Thanks for the insight. Hmm dilemma dilemma. Not doing much murky water stuff (as in Baltic sea type of murky) per se but subject size wise I can think of those giant frog fish thingies in Komodo, where indeed having 60 could be troublesome, as 45 was already challenging. Well OIS is certainly nice but then I have no idea whether just the in-body would still do its job as in whether the difference would be noticeable. And do not have a viewfinder but good to know. So guess for now it will all come down to whether I want to lug that extra port with me or not
Sadly 90mm is not an option for now...tad to pricey for a poor peasant like myself plus it think I would like to see some real UW reviews first before spending this kind of money, if ever ...plus then it is indeed a rather big port to carry around. Goes against the whole simplify idea somehow.

14 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

I have read several times how difficult it is to centre the subject with a snoot without having a built-in guide light...

Here, I would like to patent a macro lens with a built-in guide light exactly in the centre that would allow me to see where the hell I am pointing the lens.

Follow me for more macro tips!

1 hour ago, Davide DB said:

I have read several times how difficult it is to centre the subject with a snoot without having a built-in guide light...

Here, I would like to patent a macro lens with a built-in guide light exactly in the centre that would allow me to see where the hell I am pointing the lens.

Follow me for more macro tips!

Canon EF - S 35mm has a light ring around the lens

16 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Canon EF - S 35mm has a light ring around the lens

Do you work at the patent office?

Do you work at the patent office? [emoji4]

43 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Canon EF - S 35mm has a light ring around the lens

Can you engage it when the camera in a housing? Doesn't look like that to me.

Can you engage it when the camera in a housing? Doesn't look like that to me.

39 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

That lens has a patent!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I will close my Kickstarter page

I have both the 45mm and 60mm and prefer the first one,  because it gives beter opportunities when I meet a larger macro subject.  When the subject gets really small I flip the CMC-1 in front.  I stopped using the CMC-1 with the 60mm,  45mm + CMC1 challenging enough  because both  DOF and finding the subject. 

I have 3 macro lenses for MFT
30mm panasonic
45mm Panasonic
60mm olympus

The best of the three at small apertures is the 30mm which is also the fastest to focus however you are on top of things
Second comes the 45mm which focuses a bit slower and really is good up to f/8 for super macro you are really close with cmc1
Last the 60mm this gives you 2-3 cm more working distance then the 45mm however this lens is best up to f/5.6 it works well with cmc1
If for supermacro you mean frame smaller than 17.3x13mm olympus 60mm is the way forward


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

17 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

The best of the three at small apertures is the 30mm which is also the fastest to focus however you are on top of things

I didn't get you.

What's the minimum focus distance underwater?

I didn't get you.
What's the minimum focus distance underwater?

To clarify the matter of working distance

The working distance is calculated from the sensor which means if a lens is very long the distance from the front element may actually be short

Example

Panasonic 45mm the lens is 79.4mm the working distance is 15cm from the sensor. 

However the working distance from the front of the lens is 65.6 mm

Olympus 60mm the lens is 98.6mm the working distance is 19cm from the sensor

However the working distance form the front of the lens is 87mm

Which means that in practical terms the difference between the two lenses is 21.4 mm in water this is 2.8 cm

It is not the case that the Olympus 60mm has significantly more working distance than the Panasonic 45mm and even in water this is less than 3cm

Those 3 cm become important when you put the CMC in the mix as the wet lens is on its own a few cm thick and therefore it is easier to use with the Olympus

I have used the Olympus for many years on the assumption that it would give me much more working distance and then when I finally got the Panasonic 45mm i realised the difference was minimal and I prefer the 90mm angle of view so I do no use the 60mm that much anymore unless I know I need super macro with wet lens

Now I'm using CMC-2 with a flip in front of the 14-42mm. This way I can quickly remove the CMC, revert to 14mm and be able to film some fish portrait or larger subjects. But from a pure macro POV I prefer the 45mm, much easier to use. I regret i sold its port while ago.

3 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

Now I'm using CMC-2 with a flip in front of the 14-42mm. This way I can quickly remove the CMC, revert to 14mm and be able to film some fish portrait or larger subjects. But from a pure macro POV I prefer the 45mm, much easier to use. I regret i sold its port while ago.

For video and 14-42 I use Subsee 5 actually unless I have tripod legs as I can't be as stable if I have too much magnification

52 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

For video and 14-42 I use Subsee 5 actually unless I have tripod legs as I can't be as stable if I have too much magnification

Yes, Pietro lent me CMC-1 CMC-2 and Subsee +5. I was very torn between the last two. In the end I chose CMC-2.

This was my fisrt test with the CMC-2 on a flip and the 14-42mm. I was still fighting with the tripod. Very flexible combination but Murphy's law is always behind the corner: on the second dive I brought with me only a small snoot light and I met a 1,5m long anlger fish. I could only film its eye 

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

To clarify the matter of working distance

The working distance is calculated from the sensor which means if a lens is very long the distance from the front element may actually be short

Example

Panasonic 45mm the lens is 79.4mm the working distance is 15cm from the sensor. 

However the working distance from the front of the lens is 65.6 mm

Olympus 60mm the lens is 98.6mm the working distance is 19cm from the sensor

However the working distance form the front of the lens is 87mm

Which means that in practical terms the difference between the two lenses is 21.4 mm in water this is 2.8 cm

It is not the case that the Olympus 60mm has significantly more working distance than the Panasonic 45mm and even in water this is less than 3cm

Those 3 cm become important when you put the CMC in the mix as the wet lens is on its own a few cm thick and therefore it is easier to use with the Olympus

I have used the Olympus for many years on the assumption that it would give me much more working distance and then when I finally got the Panasonic 45mm i realised the difference was minimal and I prefer the 90mm angle of view so I do no use the 60mm that much anymore unless I know I need super macro with wet lens

 

 

The increase in working distance (according to your calculation) is +32,6% (from 65,6mm to 87mm)

This is in good accordance with the increase in focal length of +33,3% (from 45mm to 60mm)

=> not worlds inbetween, as you say, but more or less what one could expect...

(the increase in lens length is, BTW, +24,2%)

Wolfgang

15 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

The increase in working distance (according to your calculation) is +32,6% (from 65,6mm to 87mm)

This is in good accordance with the increase in focal length of +33,3% (from 45mm to 60mm)

=> not worlds inbetween, as you say, but more or less what one could expect...

(the increase in lens length is, BTW, +24,2%)

 

Wolfgang

In reality the focal lenght is only true at infinity

Macro lenses have a lot of focus breathing if they need to be small 

at 1:1 ratio the panasonic has become a 33mm lens while the olympus is 37mm

The Olympus lens has much more focus breathing which is the reason why the lens hunts more than the Panasonic