Olympus M.ZUIKO 60mm f/2.8 Macro Lens and Raynox 250

D

davholla

Messages
2,828
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
I am thinking of going to Panasonic and using this combination.
However the thread of the 60mm lens is 46mm so how would I attach it to the Raynox 250?
Has anyone done this? Any advice?
 
Ive used this combination before, I just used a step down ring (I think that what its called)
 
If I recall correctly, yes, you just need to be careful with the plastic thread on the Raynox
 
You can either get a 46-52 step up ring and then use the clip-on adaptor that comes with the 250 (which works from 52mm to 67mm), or you can get a 46-43 step down ring and screw the 250 directly into the step down ring and not use the adaptor.

If you use a 46-52 step up ring you will need to either screw it on and off of the 60mm macro when you want to use the Raynox or alternatively leave it screwed on and get a 52mm lens cap to use in place of the 46mm lens cap that comes with the 60mm macro.

If you use a step down ring you can leave it attached to the 250 and use the 46mm lens cap as normal.

The clip-on adaptor has two very small plastic lugs that, at least in my hands, proved rather vulnerable. I have broken a lug on two adaptors (which makes them unusable), and that is one reason I have used step rings ever since. You may be a lot more careful with your kit and/or much less clumsy than I am, so this probably won't be a problem for you. It doesn't seem to be a problem for most people as far as I can tell.

You will get rather short working distances with the 250 on the 60mm macro. At maximum magnification, giving you a scene width of around 11mm, the working distance is around 35mm. That is why I prefer to use close-up lenses on a telezoom. For example with a 250 on a 45-175 at 175mm I get a minimum scene width of around 13mm with a working distance of around 110mm. With a 250 on my FZ330 bridge camera I get a minimum scene width of around 7.5mm with a working distance of around 120mm.
 
GardenersHelper said:
You can either get a 46-52 step up ring and then use the clip-on adaptor that comes with the 250 (which works from 52mm to 67mm), or you can get a 46-43 step down ring and screw the 250 directly into the step down ring and not use the adaptor.

If you use a 46-52 step up ring you will need to either screw it on and off of the 60mm macro when you want to use the Raynox or alternatively leave it screwed on and get a 52mm lens cap to use in place of the 46mm lens cap that comes with the 60mm macro.

If you use a step down ring you can leave it attached to the 250 and use the 46mm lens cap as normal.

The clip-on adaptor has two very small plastic lugs that, at least in my hands, proved rather vulnerable. I have broken a lug on two adaptors (which makes them unusable), and that is one reason I have used step rings ever since. You may be a lot more careful with your kit and/or much less clumsy than I am, so this probably won't be a problem for you. It doesn't seem to be a problem for most people as far as I can tell.

You will get rather short working distances with the 250 on the 60mm macro. At maximum magnification, giving you a scene width of around 11mm, the working distance is around 35mm. That is why I prefer to use close-up lenses on a telezoom. For example with a 250 on a 45-175 at 175mm I get a minimum scene width of around 13mm with a working distance of around 110mm. With a 250 on my FZ330 bridge camera I get a minimum scene width of around 7.5mm with a working distance of around 120mm.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that, although for me used to the Canon 60 mm lens (90mm min working distance) -that does not sound that short.
So this is the one that I want
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/46mm-43m...m-lens-thread-to-43mm-Step-Down-/271732635986

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
I really hope that you are not clumsier than me, I am quite clumsy. Looking at your kit I am amazed that you can be clumsy - some of it looks far too tricky to use for me (I mean some of these flashes that you have).
 
davholla said:
Thanks for that, although for me used to the Canon 60 mm lens (90mm min working distance) -that does not sound that short.
So this is the one that I want
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/46mm-43m...m-lens-thread-to-43mm-Step-Down-/271732635986
Click to expand...

That should do it.

davholla said:
I really hope that you are not clumsier than me, I am quite clumsy. Looking at your kit I am amazed that you can be clumsy - some of it looks far too tricky to use for me (I mean some of these flashes that you have).
Click to expand...

I've broken the bendy arms twice and stuck the broken connectors back with superglue, reducing the flexibility of the arms. I pretty much leave them in one position now and that works for all of the close-up lenses I use. I've dropped stuff onto concrete a couple of times, and had tripods tip over. Oh yes, I left a camera bag out in the rain once, open, with a camera getting rained on; it survived to my surprise. But in 12 years perhaps all that isn't too serious a record given how much I use the various bits of kit.
 
Trying Panasonic GX8 with Olympus 60 mm so far the results are not good - more due to me I guess.
Neither of these were good (both the same fly)
Canon 550D
IMG_4086Conopidfly by davholla2002, on Flickr

Panasonic

ConopidflyPanasoniccropped by davholla2002, on Flickr

Same species but due to my mistake different individual
Panasonic
PanasonicLibethra strigiventris by davholla2002, on Flickr

Canon 550D

CanonLibethra strigiventris by davholla2002, on Flickr


Thinking I might send these back, any thoughts particularly on what settings to use? I would say that this was the least enjoyable day I have had since I got my first decent photos in 2013.
 
I’d say maybe to much camera movement, have you tried a tripod? You have to take your time with macro shots, I had a go with this lens today in my LPS, with a pPanasonic G9, the results were very good, I was just using natural light in a camera shop in an arcade, lighting was just the shop lights. The lens is one of the best for this class of camera. The background may not have helped. Don’t give up, macro photography can be so rewarding. If you can use the camera timer so you just concentrate on the focus.
 
lightshipman said:
I’d say maybe to much camera movement, have you tried a tripod? You have to take your time with macro shots, I had a go with this lens today in my LPS, with a pPanasonic G9, the results were very good, I was just using natural light in a camera shop in an arcade, lighting was just the shop lights. The lens is one of the best for this class of camera. The background may not have helped. Don’t give up, macro photography can be so rewarding. If you can use the camera timer so you just concentrate on the focus.
Click to expand...
I am not planning on giving up macro - I might give up with the panasonic and just use the Canon.
To cut a long story short I use Canon 60mm and 65mm, but wondered if I had could get better using the Panasonic post focus function so got them second hand.
I can (I think, not a disaster if I can't) send them back within 2 weeks so trying to make sure that I want to keep them - at the moment. I don't.

Saying that some people do wonderful with the same equipment.

I did find my conopid fly from last year and it wasn't that great then either - but this year it was a lot more static.
However my Libethra in the past was a lot better (here is wild relative from 2015)
IMG_7765sticks by davholla2002, on Flickr

BTW I haven't got the Raynox yet, I was going to see how it worked without it.
 
GardenersHelper said:
Looking at the fly, the Canon used f/13 and flash. But did you use post focus with the GX8? That must have been with natural light (or an LED light). What was the shutter speed and aperture? Did you save that shot in-camera by choosing the focus point?
Click to expand...
I used natural light - I think I should have used led. The aperture was IIRC 4.5 and about 30. I just tried helicon to stack it.
(The annoying thing is that I could have got a good photo with the canon - if I had not spooked it with the panasonic - oh well, it comes out every year in my front garden. 8 days earlier this year than last BTW, although sadly I don't go out every day, work wants me to go in Monday to Friday which stops photographing.
Conopid Fly IMG_0648 by davholla2002, on Flickr
 
davholla said:
I am not planning on giving up macro - I might give up with the panasonic and just use the Canon.
To cut a long story short I use Canon 60mm and 65mm, but wondered if I had could get better using the Panasonic post focus function so got them second hand.
I can (I think, not a disaster if I can't) send them back within 2 weeks so trying to make sure that I want to keep them - at the moment. I don't.

Saying that some people do wonderful with the same equipment.

I did find my conopid fly from last year and it wasn't that great then either - but this year it was a lot more static.
However my Libethra in the past was a lot better (here is wild relative from 2015)
IMG_7765sticks by davholla2002, on Flickr

BTW I haven't got the Raynox yet, I was going to see how it worked without it.
Click to expand...
davholla said:
I am not planning on giving up macro - I might give up with the panasonic and just use the Canon.
To cut a long story short I use Canon 60mm and 65mm, but wondered if I had could get better using the Panasonic post focus function so got them second hand.


BTW I haven't got the Raynox yet, I was going to see how it worked without it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, mis read title, thought you were using Panasonic with Raynox
 
Here are more two examples.
Canon, ok reasonable detail, single shot minimal editing
DaresCanon by davholla2002, on Flickr

Panasonic, not very good, post focus about 20 images (I think).

DaresPanasonic-1 by davholla2002, on Flickr

I think the problem is not the gear but the relative experience, now as I could send this back for the next few days I would like to get better to make it worth while

Any advice?
 
davholla said:
Here are more two examples.
Canon, ok reasonable detail, single shot minimal editing
...........
Any advice?
Click to expand...

So are you capturing a post focus video and then feeding that into Helicon Focus?

If you are, if you would like to upload the post focus video here at Dropbox I will take a look at it.
 
I have uploaded several files but please only look at as many as you have times
 
davholla said:
I have uploaded several files but please only look at as many as you have times
Click to expand...

OK, I tried five of them, with mixed results. Here is the best I got.


1 NOT MY IMAGE - davholla P1090685 4KPFS18f f005-022 F4.5 1-100 ISO500 -1EV C1 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

This one fairly similar.


2 NOT MY IMAGE - davholla P1090677 4KPFS28f f006-033 F4.5 1-100 ISO400 -1EV C1 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Then in descending order of image quality...


3 NOT MY IMAGE - davholla P1090731 4KPFS55f f004-058 F4 1-100 ISO1250 -0.3EV C1 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


4 NOT MY IMAGE - davholla P1090720 4KPFS47f f004-050 F3.2 1-100 ISO3200 -0EV C1 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


5 NOT MY IMAGE - davholla P1090723 4KPFS42f f004-045 F3.2 1-80 ISO3200 -0EV C1 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Some thoughts.

You used an Olympus 60mm Macro on a Panasonic GX8 micro four thirds camera. Were you using extension tubes? (The equivalent focal length shows as 174mm rather than 120mm as would show for the 60mm macro by itself. This hints at your using extension tubes with electrical connections.)

I suspect the animals were not moving. Is that right?

But there is a lot of camera movement. That is ok with my flowers but they are at less magnification (no extension tubes for example).

Were you working hand-held? If you were using a tripod them something is not right with the camera. If you were working hand-held would you be able to try similar shots using a tripod or some other means of support?

Your 550D comparison shot is much better than the last three, but you used flash for that. That means your effective shutter speed was the length of the flash pulse, quite likely faster than 1/1000 sec. In comparison, using 1/80 and 1/100 sec as you did for the post focus captures may simply not be fast enough to get sharp images for the individual frames given the amount of camera movement. If that is the case then the final result can't be sharp either.

The two that worked best were ISO 400. The others were ISO 1250 and two at ISO 3200. Personally I never go higher than ISO 1600 with my micro four thirds cameras. Could you apply more light to the scene so you could use lower ISOs?

There is flickering in P1090721, 722 and 723, but not in the very similar 720. Was there any change in the lighting after 720?

What Photo Style are you using and what are the settings within that Photo Style for Sharpness and Noise Reduction? (+1 and -2 respectively may be suitable.)

A post focus capture starts with the focus somewhere in the middle distance. The focus is then jumps quickly to the nearest thing the camera can find to focus on. It then tracks away to the furthest thing it can focus on, and then jumps quickly back to the middle. You need to remove the frames for the initial jump to the front. Then remove the frames at the end which are beyond what you want in focus, or if you want as much as possible in focus at the back just remove the frames right at the end when it jumps back to the middle. You can see from the filenames beneath the above images what frames I used for each stack, eg "f005-022" for the first one means that I used frames 5 to 22. I used Method C for all of them with smoothing set to 1. This should let you recreate the stacks.

I exported the stacks as TIFF files, adjusted them in Lightroom and then exported to 1300 pixel high JPEGs, which are the ones at Flickr. The ones in this post are resized to 1024 on the long side by Flickr.

I hope this is helpful. Happy to explore further with you.
 
Last edited:
GardenersHelper said:
OK, I tried five of them, with mixed results. Here is the best I got.

Some thoughts.

You used an Olympus 60mm Macro on a Panasonic GX8 micro four thirds camera. Were you using extension tubes? (The equivalent focal length shows as 174mm rather than 120mm as would show for the 60mm macro by itself. This hints at your using extension tubes with electrical connections.)

I suspect the animals were not moving. Is that right?

But there is a lot of camera movement. That is ok with my flowers but they are at less magnification (no extension tubes for example).

Were you working hand-held? If you were using a tripod them something is not right with the camera. If you were working hand-held would you be able to try similar shots using a tripod or some other means of support?

Your 550D comparison shot is much better than the last three, but you used flash for that. That means your effective shutter speed was the length of the flash pulse, quite likely faster than 1/1000 sec. In comparison, using 1/80 and 1/100 sec as you did for the post focus captures may simply not be fast enough to get sharp images for the individual frames given the amount of camera movement. If that is the case then the final result can't be sharp either.

The two that worked best were ISO 400. The others were ISO 1250 and two at ISO 3200. Personally I never go higher than ISO 1600 with my micro four thirds cameras. Could you apply more light to the scene so you could use lower ISOs?

There is flickering in P1090721, 722 and 723, but not in the very similar 720. Was there any change in the lighting after 720?

What Photo Style are you using and what are the settings within that Photo Style for Sharpness and Noise Reduction? (+1 and -2 respectively may be suitable.)

A post focus capture starts with the focus somewhere in the middle distance. The focus is then jumps quickly to the nearest thing the camera can find to focus on. It then tracks away to the furthest thing it can focus on, and then jumps quickly back to the middle. You need to remove the frames for the initial jump to the front. Then remove the frames at the end which are beyond what you want in focus, or if you want as much as possible in focus at the back just remove the frames right at the end when it jumps back to the middle. You can see from the filenames beneath the above images what frames I used for each stack, eg "f005-022" for the first one means that I used frames 5 to 22. I used Method C for all of them with smoothing set to 1. This should let you recreate the stacks.

I exported the stacks as TIFF files, adjusted them in Lightroom and then exported to 1300 pixel high JPEGs, which are the ones at Flickr. The ones in this post are resized to 1024 on the long side by Flickr.

I hope this is helpful. Happy to explore further with you.
Click to expand...

As always helpful.
1) The animals were not moving in most/all of the shots. Although stick insects do sometimes move an antennae a bit
2) Some of the shots I had a lcd torch but I am not sure which one
3) For photo style what do you mean? In the camera? I just aperture mode
4) About this " You need to remove the frames for the initial jump to the front. " - I was trying to do that. Is there a way in Helicon Focus that you can remove all jpegs and only select a few.

I could try a tripod but I really need to get this working freehand. The reason is although I do have a tripod (very useful to get photos of sleeping children - which I can't share).
I will go to Colombia again next year and for various reasons too boring [too boring for you, I can write for hours ]to explain tripods don't work for me there. So I need a robust solution.
 
Last edited:
davholla said:
As always helpful.
1) The animals were not moving in most/all of the shots. Although stick insects do sometimes move an antennae a bit
2) Some of the shots I had a lcd torch but I am not sure which one
3) For photo style what do you mean? In the camera? I just aperture mode
Click to expand...

In the camera.





davholla said:
4) About this " You need to remove the frames for the initial jump to the front. " - I was trying to do that. Is there a way in Helicon Focus that you can remove all jpegs and only select a few.
Click to expand...

Yes, drag the MP4 file into Helicon Focus. It extracts the JEPGs and aligns them. You see the frames listed on the right.



In the next screenshot I have worked my way through the frames to find the one I want to start with, in this case frame 5, and I have highlighted the ones I don't want to use. I can now press the delete button and they will be removed.



Alternatively, I can right click on the list of frames and click on "Uncheck selected". They will then not be used in the stack. This is useful if you want to try various end points, but the "Source Images" number at the top doesn't get updated to take account of the ones you have unchecked. If you remove the ones you don't want to use then the "Source Images" number will tell you the number of frames (to be) used for the stack.



davholla said:
I could try a tripod but I really need to get this working freehand. The reason is although I do have a tripod (very useful to get photos of sleeping children - which I can't share).
I will go to Colombia again next year and for various reasons too boring [too boring for you, I can write for hours ]to explain tripods don't work for me there. So I need a robust solution.
Click to expand...

I am very doubtful as to how well this would work for you in Colombia. Won't you be under the tree canopy a lot? If you need additional lighting wouldn't this be as inconvenient as using flash?

This morning I tried stacking a ? bee that I captured using post focus on a few days ago with the G9 and 60mm macro, because I wanted to see how well it would work. That was in good strong light, and I was able to use 1/320 sec. I wasn't impressed with the result.

The capture took 10 seconds (315 frames), and for the first three seconds or so it was struggling to find the front of the scene. Once it did get there and start moving back it did so ever so slowly and as you can see from the "Source Images" number at the top of the list of frames I ended up using 122 frames, so that was four seconds of not very steady hands. The leaves may have been moving too. I'm afraid I can't remember.

It's antennae were moving around a lot and so were the little fiddly things around its mouth. Here is what the stack looked like, on the right.



That might be ok, because you can use retouching to copy from an individual frame to get an in focus antenna for example. The next illustration shows me copying the end of the antenna from one of the individual frames.



But I ran into a problem. The antenna is long, and not sideways on to the camera, and only very narrow slices are in focus in individual frames. I could copy across one bit of the antenna that was in focus but when I found the frame where the next bit of the antenna was in focus the antenna had moved so that that in focus part didn't line up with the previous in focus part I had used.

Even discounting that I didn't think I was getting any more detail than I would be seeing from a flash-based single capture. The depth of field could be larger, but overall I didn't think it looked worthwhile.

It's only one example, but it doesn't incline me to spend a lot of time trying stacking for the type of insect shots I capture (subjects often moving around, and/or bits of them moving, and/or only there very briefly) and the type of conditions (often breezy, with subjects on foliage that is blowing around in the breeze, or spiders on webs that are moving in the breeze). I'm ok with stacking for my botanical stuff, but at this stage I can't see me using stacking much for invertebrates. YMMV of course because your subjects and shooting conditions may be different.
 
GardenersHelper said:
In the camera.



I am very doubtful as to how well this would work for you in Colombia. Won't you be under the tree canopy a lot? If you need additional lighting wouldn't this be as inconvenient as using flash?
.
Click to expand...

Very interesting post, I will try this tomorrow (family are visiting tonight).
You are right about light in Colombia, although flash/lcd torch is not a problem just carrying a tripod any distance.
 
I didn't have much time tonight and I realized that my mobile phone light is not a good source. I am beginning to think that this is not the best buy ever, I will try a bit more and see if I should keep them or not. First one with Canon second with Panasonic - not a real benefit even if you ignore the light.
I think the main problem is that I need to do free hand photos and this for me so far doesn't work like well - and I was leaning on something doing these


CanonTry. by davholla2002, on Flickr


panasonictry1-1 by davholla2002, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
davholla said:
My conclusion is that for my conditions and skill there is no benefit to moving to Panasonic, unless someone says to me something like "No you should do x and it will give really really sharp photos"
Click to expand...

I think we have reached the same conclusion about using stacking for invertebrates given our respective subject matter and shooting circumstances.

btw I don't think that reflects on Panasonic as such. I got the same type of results with my MFT Panasonics for single images using flash as with my Canon 70D and Canon bridge cameras, and my Panasonic bridge cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top