Macro

And let's not forget that a macro lens is also rather good at other subjects :)
Whether or not that's important will depend on the rest of the lens collection
(note that the only extension tubes with electrical connections I know of are also around 170€)

My manual 35mm film 100mm F4 pentax macro lens cost me about £90 and then around a fiver for an adapter for micro 4/3. I have also played with af confirm manual lens to eos adapters. These tell the camera that they have a 50mm F1.4 lens on. Used on a microscope I found that the AF confirm aspect was inadequate but as the depth of field is um on microscope objectives that doesn't really surprise me. As macro is usually shot circa F16 probably moving the camera to achieve focus and then stopping down they may work well for that sort of thing but the lack of image stability may be a problem. The other alternative is tethered to get results quickly or magnified live view as per micro 4/3. The magnified view aspect is much needed as there are far more pixels on the sensor than in the live view display.

There is plenty of info on using manual lenses on EOS's on the web. Some lenses aren't suitable as they may foul the mirror on full frame if I remember correctly. My 100mm is one of those. It's from the electronic Pentax film era. I found that the offending lever could be removed and put safely away for if needed later.

I also recollect that eos digital extension tubes are available that retain AF and metering. Not sure on that point and suspect they wont be made by canon. The metering may need some experimentation.

I recently bought some full auto extension tubes for micro 4/3. About £20 off ebay from a Chinese seller that has a warehouse in the UK. They are well made, brass and plastic. Fit is good but the tubes can be rotated a little bit when locked in place on the camera. This doesn't cause contact problems. Haven't really used them yet but should be in the next couple of weeks. I suspect I will mostly use these with the Olympus 40-150mm zoom but will probably wish it was 100-200mm or more. The OM-D has full time image stability unlike the Pen's so focus checking should be a lot easier. The Pansonic lenses have IS built in but I wonder about their optical quality eg look carefully at this ducks head, taken with their 100-300mm which is definitely better than the shorter FL long zoom. I may have overshot the focus a little and of course it's moving but I feel it's a little soft.

Edit - Looking more closely at the original and being fair the focus is too far into the shot. Also it's cropped so as presented it corresponds to a 1200mm view in 35mm terms. Might be asking to much to expect feather detail taking both aspects into account.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2ugdvl2.jpg

John
-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by revi

(note that the only extension tubes with electrical connections I know of are also around 170€)

---

That doesn't compare very well with the 4 dioptre I recently bought from B&H fopr US$26
This links to B&H with a large range of Canon and Nikon auto-tubes listed
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Ex...6/N/4077634539

For several reasons I am glad I went to a bridge camera instead of a DSLR and forgot about extension tubes I had used with my SLRs ... this thread illustrates the different approaches depending on one's gear.... I now have MFT and able to use my tubes and/or bellows but for pure convenience I use CU lens[es] as I do not need to go that tight and with MFT I can crop in a way I couldn't with my bridge cameras. The attraction of MFT was that it replaced my old DSLR purchased mainly to use the tubes and bellows but never for real :(. It is nice to have the ability even if the need never arises :)

I was sitting at the breakfast bar and looked down to see this fellow YUK!
Using full zoom of the 14-140 on my G3 of the time along with the two dioptre. Cropped a bit becuase really I need a 4d lens for the Lumix 14-140.
He was removed to the garden afterwards :)
http://i41.tinypic.com/2uy0va8.jpg

I have tried close up lenses on micro 4/3 for obvious reasons - AF. I have found that they just don't offer the resolution a dedicated macro lens does. There are achromatic ones available at a price but I asked a Chinese seller if they did a micro 4/3 version of their 4/3 extension tubes and they replied not at the moment so I waited. They list them now.

Maybe the best way to get a feel of what to use is to look in the post your insect thread. One person who posts regularly uses a longish telephoto zoom and extension tubes. You can right click on the image and look at properties to get some idea. This person doesn't heavily process images either and from memory uses a Sigma lens on a Canon camera. I also get the impression that the subjects are live - :D Not accusing anybody but dead ones are used at times. Personally I feel that some distance between lens and subject is essential. More is better than less. Flash often dictates a certain minimum distances.

Some of my miserable offerings are on here. All hand held using the 100mm Pentax macro lens set on 2:1 on a Pen EPL-1. The Pen has images stabilising while the shot is taken but none while focusing manually - great fun try to focus via 7x magnification. One of the images was grabbed by the flickr live wild life group as soon as it went up.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4899461...7631535313006/

John
-

Flash does not dictate minimum distance if you adjust its output ... in the camera for my spider visitor above or with the flash gun at other times. I have both Panasonic and Olympus Pen and feel a wee bit sorry/sympathetic for those labouring with the Oly :) ... I am biased of course :) I also do not go looking for problems and value the convienience of the CU lens versus other ways and do not notice the alleged problems so frequently mentioned .... simply not important on my scale.

:) The OM-D is in another world JC. The Pen E-P3 is a very capable camera especially if some one is happy to set up their own preferred mode of usage. As it come with the extended menu's disabled it's for point and shoot people and actually works rather well that way IF IN FULL AUTO. The E-PL1 falls short on focusing especially in low light for some reason and also doesn't seem to have such good IS as the E-P3. It will cope with 500mm lens though hand held seated or crouched. Also when the options are set to assign buttons to this and that it's a little cumbersome to use especially with the viewfinder on. Fitted with a Panasonic lens all Pen's have full time IS.

I have had situations where flash wont expose correctly because the working distance is too short. Also with a 50mm macro lens on it shades the cameras built in flash and none of the light reaches the subject. Another reason for having a decent working distance.

:eek: Has to be said that there are so many options on an E-P3 that I was far from working my way though all of them when I bought the OM-D. I just about managed to exhaust control options only on the E-PL1. That one did persuade me that I just had to calibrate my monitor all on it's own.

John
-

You are right John and I forgot for a moment the physical interferance of the lens to the on-board flash which you can see in the full frame of my spider, less obvious there than is usual. 'Take the lenshood off" is something I frequently forget about :(