GH-1 Macro lens

B

BrianBrook

Active member
This will be my first non-kit lens for the GH-1 so I need the adapter and macro lens itself-this is for a personal project so I need good quality glass but on a budget-is there a happy compromise someone can recommend between decent optics and $$ ?
 
The canon FD 50mm macro and adapter works well (as does the 100mm macro) if you can deal with manual focus and manual exposure.

You can pick the 50mm up on ebay for under $75 or the 100mm for under $90 if you're patient... or, if you're in a hurry... for a little more.

I recently got the 50mm macro and it's amazingly sharp... I've enjoyed it so much that I went back on ebay to find a 100mm macro.
 
The leica is certainly nice but out of my price range (almost what I paid for the GH-1!!) as for the Canon FD 50mm-what adapter do you recommend? and all manual is fine-after using autofocus some shots are just too soft and the macro will be critical to keep sharp!
 
I'm still waiting on the ceicio7 adapter to arrive. I already have the "pixco" style and it's functional, but doesn't feel exactly precise. It locks onto the camera fine, but there's a tiny (slight) bit of play where the lens meets the adapter. That's why I'm giving the ceicio7 adapter a try.

BTW... the FD lenses have ZERO auto-focus... so if you say "all manual is fine after using autofocus"... just realize FD = MANUAL focus... period. AND manual exposure... period.

Is it worth it? In my opinion yes, by a mile. Check the macro footage posted in the footage sub-forum... is that not fantastic? Plus... dirt cheap for the image quality.
 
I agree the price/quality is nothing to complain about-is the only factor driving macro lens prices higher the F-stops?? I guess not a concern with a conrolled lighting scheme...Thanks again this forum and the people in it are the most helpfull and honest that I never want to take this for granted!
 
Macro lenses are different then normal lenses. While they may have higher f-stop (lower is typically better)... the overall lens is typically better made... and the mechanics of the lens are also quite a bit different. For example... the FD 50 1.4 turns about 2/3 of a turn... and the total lens hardly "grows"... but the 50 macro turns almost a full turn... and the lens "grows" a lot... it's almost like the focus includes a bit of zoom. It can focus from super close (go figure) to normal 50mm use. Trust me, it's totally unique... also, if you look into it you'll see that macro lenses are often sharper then the normal equivalents. It's simply a different kind of lens. The next time you want to shoot something close... and you move in until it gets fuzzy... think about a macro. You won't believe the difference. You could take two different images of the same object with a 50mm macro... and most people would think it was two different ends of a short zoom lens... rather then shot with the same 50mm.

Here's what I mean... all taken this afternoon with FD 50mm macro and GH1... one lens:

1280116775.jpg
 
Yes, that's it.

r.e. the macro lens, I have the newer FD style, and it was about $60. I'd call it "decent" condition... probably EX- on the typical condition scale. The lens you linked is older, but appears EX+... hence the higher price. I actually prefer the mounting/locking mechanism (silver ring) on the older FD lenses... and mainly, no matter what FD lenses you may buy, prioritize the GLASS itself first, then assess the rest of the total lens condition.

I thought I had to quickly snatch one of these from ebay, but they come up on there all the time... as do most of the FD lenses, so my best advice is don't go nuts with them. I see people paying over $100 for the regular FD 50 1.4 and they CONSTANTLY end on ebay for under $70.

If you really want to get started with macro asap, that lens is an okay deal, but for that price I'd expect you can get a newer FD version in just as good of condition. While I definitely like the old style of lens locking/mounting... if all else is equal (condition of the lens) I'd rather buy a newer lens. For that price you can get a newer one in the same condition. Although I'm sure threads like this will have more people buying them.

As for the f/3.5... if you pick up your GH1 w/ kit lens... it's f/4-5.8... and the SECOND you turn the lens... in the first half-millimeter... the f-stop starts to climb. This is why some people talk the kit lens down, even though it's nice and sharp in good light, because it's dog-slow for light gathering... so I wouldn't be put off by a constant 3.5. Lower f-stop is always better... but you'll be doing most of your macro shots in good light. Even at 3.5 it's really hard to maintain close macro focus in the thin DOF plain. I've been shooting in direct sunlight at f/5.6 - 8.
 
Firstly I have to point out that I am a stills macro photographer without much experience of video, and also I don't have a m4/3 camera (although I do have a 4/3 system I use for macro photography, although my main system I use is a Canon one).

There's been some good advice already, but I will add to it and clarify some of your options. Perhaps one of the most important things to decide is what are the size of the things you want to photograph with your project and how important is the working distance i.e. the end of the lens to the subject.

As MattinSTL points out a proper macro lens is the most useful for shooting macro, mainly because of the huge focusing range of the lens. The none proper macro lens options generally lock you into a small magnification range, and you have to change attachments to alter this.

You have got 3 main options if you are on a budget and don't want to go to the expense of the m4/3 PL 45mm f2.8 OIS macro lens and I will list them roughly in their order of cost.

1) I am assuming that you are referring to the 14-140mm kit lens. Use a powerful achromatic close-up lens on your kit lens, such as the Raynox DCR-250. These Raynox close-up lenses are excellent and you could get quite a high magnification with very good quality for not much money. I am not sure of the current US price for the Raynox DCR-250 as I am from the UK, but I think it is just over $40. There is also the less powerful DCR-150 and the much more powerful MSN-202. These are not cheap nasty lenses as some people wrongly think and on a top quality lens they are capable of top draw image quality. The disadvantage is you have a more limited magnification range, but the advantage is that you maintain all automatic functions with your kit lens, including AF, and there is no light loss.

2) A 4/3 macro lens such as the Olympus ZD 35mm f3.5 on the m4/3 to 4/3 adaptor. This has the advantage of full electronic control of the lens from your camera, although you won't have AF on a Panasonic body. The main disadvantage is that these electronically coupled adaptors are nearly as expensive as this budget macro lens, so nearly double its price. However, optically this lens is superb, but the main disadvantage is at its minimum close focus distance the working distance is only about 2cm and it can make lighting difficult.

3) An older manual focus macro lens used via and adaptor. These lenses have a lovely construction and their focusing rings are so much nicer than modern AF lenses. Certainly the Canon FD and Nikon micro lens are excellent. However, so are similar macro lenses from the likes of Olympus, Minolta, Pentax, Yashica, and from some of the independents like Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and Vivitar (I am talking about the older manual focus ones here). The main thing is avoiding the ones with some collectability as you will pay a big price premium. All these older manual focus macro lenses are excellent and I am not aware of any bad ones. Most of these macro lenses were some of the best performing lenses around.

One thing to note with these older manual focusing macro lenses is that most of them only went to half-size - 1:2 - instead of the common life-size - 1:1 of macro lenses now. In case you aren't familiar with these so called reproduction ratios, life-size means that at the minimum focus distance an area the size of the sensor will fill the frame (17.3mm x 13mm on m4/3 stills 4:3 ratio). Half life-size means that this area would be twice the size on the linear dimensions. A fewer older manual focus lenses did go to life-size, but this was mainly the independents. For instance I have got an old Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro lens that I bought about 15 years and that will go to 1:1. Some lenses had dedicated adaptors to cover the range 1:2 - 1:1. However, a cheap set of manual extension tubes off eBay will get a 1:2 macro lens well beyond 1:1, and these are very cheap.

The main thing to decide with the older manual focus macro lenses is whether to go for one in the 50mm or 90-105mm range. As these lenses are normally optically excellent and go to infinity it will make a good general purpose lens of that focal length. The longer focal length lenses have much better working distance. The Raynox DCR-250 I mentioned before would also work very well on 90-105mm macro lens, much increasing the magnification.

Here's my Flickr Photostream to show I know a bit about macro:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9578475@N02/

And here is a useful thread I started about macro photography, and which contains a lot of useful information and links.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/bbcspringwatch/discuss/72157624094094213/#comment72157624461580497
 
Both of you gentlemen exemplify in your photos this "Hidden world" that is unavailable to us w/o the amazing world opened up through macrophotography-this and stop-motion animation are so unique and something I've wanted to explore for literally decades! It is really only possible for me now and I want to congradulate you both on your excellent work which I know requires patience, diligence and the "luck" factor of capturing something that we naturally would miss out on w/o magnification!
 
If you go Nikon check this lens out the 55mm 2.8. I inherited it years ago, my first Nikkor lens and used it as 50mm 'cos I had no idea what micro was. On a GH1 it's a great intimate portrait lens and insert shot lens, hands, cigarettes, book pages etc and can be found on ebay for $70. I use my Nikkors with a Kipon nikon to m43 adaptor from adorama $50.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55f28ais.htm
 
I thoughtn I had it wrapped up w/ Canon FD and then before the last post looked into Nikkors for comparison sake-SO Canon FD/Nikon Nikkors macro? is a compare/contrast possible or are we talking apples/oranges in the world of lenses?? BTW I have much to learn about glass in general so this thread is VERY enlightening!
 
ha! Nikkor vs Canon don't get that thread started, it's whatever feels right in your hand and eye. Nice thing about the GH1 with the two adaptors you can own Canon FD's as well. Beatles vs Stones? My stills camera's were all Nikon, never owned Canon it's just a 70's thing for me but then hey Nikkor rocks.
 
I've asked this question on another thread but it seems much more appropriate here:
Does anybody have exp with Tamron 90mm macro? From the reviews it seems that the glass is very sharp and it has 1:1 without ext. tubes. It comes in different variations depending on the mount. Nikon one comes with an apreture ring, the others don't.
 
Last edited:
MattinSTL said:
BTW... the FD lenses have ZERO auto-focus... so if you say "all manual is fine after using autofocus"... just realize FD = MANUAL focus... period. AND manual exposure... period.
Click to expand...

Mostly true but there was at least one or two autofocus Canon FD mount lenses, but they had the autofocusing brain attached to the lens itself, they were big and wonky and slow, but anyways, it's worth noting...I think? :)
 
I use a Canon FD 100mm f4 Macro lense with my GH13 I bought off ebay. From what I remember about my research then, the 100mm has the advantage that you can position the cam further away. This way you stay clear of the "flight distance" of insects (i.e. when they run, crawl, jump away). I also couple it with an extension tube at times for greater magnification. (on ebay they run for 120 USD or so)

This was shot w/o extension tube


This was shot w/ extension tube



Greetings from Liechtenstein
 
Well... I think it goes w/o saying... that is some fantastic footage! I have that lens w/ extension tube also... it's pretty darn hard to hold focus with the tube on isn't it? I have to decide what I need more... magnification or a little more DOF at a given f-stop!

That is some great stuff... I like the first vid best, but both are very very good.

I have to laugh at how quickly people adapt to amazing things. If you had posted that first vid a couple years ago in it's own thread it would have got 50K views and 5K replies asking questions about it... now people are like, "what's that? amazing footage? hmm... that's cool I guess".

I'm definitely impressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top