35mm only takes you so far...

[KodiakStar]

I have the essential "budget" lens for the E-510, the 35mm Macro f3.5
Sadly I am often disappointed in the shots that don't matter as much compared to all the amazing shots I have been able to take with it.

Getting down and dirty, this 100% crop of this camouflaged bug just leaves me wanting more.



What Macro lens does everyone else feel the most comfortable using?

[Stryker]

Your title says it all. I think 35mm is just too uncomfortable for a good macro lens, budget or no budget. But apart from the focal length, the quality of lens is also a factor in determining how good an image you can get from it. I have a Tamron 90mm macro and that lens is *sharp*. A really good macro lens is one which will let you be as far away from the subject as possible, while still having a 1:1 image ratio. The one I have is just about good enough although the farther away you can get, the better it is for macro shots.

[photofun]

KodiakStar - I was considering this lens - you say you're not happy with it. Is it because you have to get so close to the subject? I have an E-500 and as you know the selection of lens is very limited for Olympus cameras. Have you used it for anything other than macro and what kind of results do you get? Are you wishing you'd made another choice and if so, what would it have been?

I've tried my 40-150mm kit lens for macro shots and actually, much to my surprise, got some good results because I didn't have to be so close and didn't scare my subjects away. Here's a shot I took with it.



Stryker - how close can you be with your lens? I find my 40-150mm lens annoying at times because I have to be about 3 feet away.

[KodiakStar]

It is a super lens for flowers and similar items that are not *too* small. That bug up there was pretty tiny, maybe 2cm? It is good for other things such as portraits but the 70mm effective length is challenging. It takes a while sometimes to focus though the auto mode, slow and cumbersome..

Rather then worry myself too much with the faults of it, I mainly play to its strengths and try to make it work for me. I would like a longer macro lens to get better shots, but the type of shots I would love to take, would cost as much as a new car!

Did you use an extension tube, or reverse mount with your 40-150?

[photofun]

No I didn't use anything extra. I was about 3 1/2 feet away and the little guy just stayed there and let me take a few pictures of him. I have a 3+ close-up filter but I can't seem to get any good pictures with it on this lens. It works well with my other kit lens. I've considered getting more of the close-up filters. Perhaps you could try a close-up filter with your macro lens but I think that might make you need to be even closer to your subject.

Just curious how much of the frame did the bug fill up before cropping and about how far away from the bug were you?

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by photofun

Stryker - how close can you be with your lens? I find my 40-150mm lens annoying at times because I have to be about 3 feet away.

I am usually about 3 feet away from the subject at the furthest so the difference is not much. My lens is a 90mm of course, so a longer one with a 180 mm focal length would allow you to be approx twice that distance away. A good nice separation from the subject, at about three times the cost. I can be much closer, as close as nearly touching the subject with the end of the lens barrel, but at this distance lighting will be an issue.