Best Lens/Accessory Option to Achieve 1.5-2:1 Magnification with Micro Four Thirds?

[Neottia_bifolia]

Hi there all,

I use the Olympus EM-5 III with m.zuiko 60mm f2.8 lens and have been really happy with the results (not that I have much to compare it with, I'm just getting back into photography after several years. I also plan to probably get a Nikon Z5 down the road, but that's another story). I do mostly stacks of small but not tiny subjects- small flowers, some insects and fungi, with most of my subjects maybe around the 1-2cm size. (Most of my stacks end up being under 100 photos I'd say.) There are some smaller flowers, maybe around the 5-8mm range that I'd love to get just a little more magnification on than the 1:1 offered by the m.zuiko 60mm so I can fill the frame some more without having to crop out many pixels. For example see the (very compressed/low quality, and totally unedited/not retouched!) photo of small orchid flower at end- the stack was taken at just about 1:1.

I've looked around and the only lenses I've found that offer higher magnification like the Laowa 100mm f2.8 2x ultra macro are manual focus. I love the ease of the in-camera focus bracketing offered in my little Olympus MFT, which doesn't work on a manual focus lens. I know there are extension tubes and closeup filters. I understand the basic idea of both and as they're both relatively cheap I'm open to trying them. However they seem pretty crude and it seems at least the closeup filters can create some optical/quality issues?

I'm sorry if this answer can be found elsewhere, and if so feel free to link it, but-- what do you think is my best option to retain quality as much as possible and ideally be able to keep using an auto-focus lens to do in-camera focus bracketing? Is there another lens or other options I should be looking at?

Thanks in advance!
Simon

[JayMcClellan]

I have that lens and I get good results with a Raynox 150 or 250 when I need a little more magnification. You just need a 46mm-43mm step down adapter because the clip-on holder that comes with the Raynox won't fit.

[enricosavazzi]

There is the possible approach of add-ons to your equipment (like the Raynox add-on lenses mentioned above), there is the approach of replacing the 60 mm with a lens that reaches 2x, and then there is the possible approach of getting another lens that gives you the 1x-2x magnification range (or more).

Another possible add-on is a set (or two) of extension rings. There are numerous, largely no-brand sets of two extension rings made in China. One set should get you up to about 1.5x with the Olympus 60 mm macro. Unfortunately the body of these extension rings is made of plastic, and not very rigid, and the mechanical tolerances of their metal bayonets are not the best. The good thing with these rings is that they have electronic contacts, so you still get aperture control and AF by the camera, and in-camera focus stacking and bracketing.

You have already discovered the Laowa macro lenses that go from infinity to 2x. They include an updated 50 mm that you did not mention, which is specifically redesigned for Micro 4/3. It still has only mechanical MF, but it does have electronic aperture control by the camera and provides EXIF metadata. It is also physically quite small and narrow.

The OM System 90 mm Pro macro that should arrive next year is another possibility, goes from infinity to 2x (not 4x as erroneously reported), and has AF and focus-by-wire (and therefore in-camera focus stacking and bracketing). You will have to wait a few months, we do not know exactly when it will arrive and how much it will cost, but it will not be cheap. A good thing with this lens is its longer FL than the 60 mm. The 90 mm will have internal focus, so its actual focal length in the macro range will be significantly less than 90 mm (just like the 60 mm has a significantly shorter FL in the macro range). Hopefully it will have a narrow barrel, not as fat as those of the other latest Pro lenses. It may lack a tripod collar, which is bad for studio work.

The last possible approach is to not duplicate the infinity to 1x range already provided by your 60 mm macro. Unfortunately, there is no good alternative with a 1x-2x magnification range that I am aware of. The Canon 1x-5x lens is difficult to adapt to Micro 4/3. The Mitakon 85 mm 1x-5x is optically relatively poor. The Laowa 25 mm 2.5-5x is optically good and not excessively large, but out of the range you want. There are a number of scanner lenses and bellows lenses that cover this range, but they require extension tubes, bellows, helicoids or the like.

[Lou Jost]

Hi Simon, I think any solution for you must retain in-camera focus bracketing. That eliminates the Laowa and many of the other things mentioned above.

You didn't mention your budget. A 1.4x or 2x teleconverter would be your best mid-budget solution. These preserve your working distance, unlike extension tubes, which I DO NOT recommend for your applications. The 1.4x will retain more image quality than the 2x. I do not have them but I keep meaning to buy one....The Nikon FF equivalents were integral parts of my macro equipment....

A higher-cost solution is the upcoming 90mm Oly macro lens. This will almost certainly have the highest optical quality. It would be great if you can afford it.

The lowest-cost solution is a close-up lens. The Raynox mentioned above is a good choice, but there are other slightly better alternatives, though these are more costly. I did a test of close-up lenses and found a Precision Optics filter that was better than the Raynox, though hard to find and expensive. I don't remember which one it was, unfortunately...

[joshmacro]

Hi Simon. Having used an E-M5 II and the M.Zuiko 60mm macro for quite a while, I can strongly recommend getting an auto extension tubes to get to 1.5:1 and using the Raynox DCR-250 to get to 2:1. The 60mm macro pairs incredibly well with the Raynox. Buy a step-down ring to connect the Raynox to the 60mm macro (do not use what Raynox gives you in the box). You can also use them both together to get 2.39:1. Here's the summary:

Typical 26mm auto extension tubes (I highly recommend the Kenko set) with 60mm macro gives 1.43:1 which is 12mm x 9mm.
The Raynox 250 with 60mm macro gives 1.96:1 which is 8.8m x 6.6m.
Combining the 26mm extension tubes and Raynox 250 gives 2.39:1 which is 7.2m x 5.4m.

Instead of getting the extension tubes to get to 1.43:1 you can get the Ranox 150 which will give you 1.58:1. However then you will not have the ability to use the third scenario as outlined above.

The huge benefits of all the solutions are that they maintain auto focus which enables in-camera focus stacking and bracketing. You can also focus step with these set-ups by tethering to a PC. I forget if you can tether the E-M5 III to a PC but you can with the E-M5 II. I cannot stress enough how valuable tethering is. Having the ability to use focus for stepping in the 1.5-2.5 range completely eliminates the need for manual or automatic focus rails which makes the set-up so much easier. The image quality in all these set-ups I have found to be superb.

I have explored using the Oly 2x teleconverter, but I found the image quality not better than the set-ups above. Additionally, the Oly teleconverter is not built for the 60mm macro so it requires tweaking the equipment which is not fun (i.e. you need an extension tube between the teleconverter and the lens). It is also very expensive and nearly impossible to find one for sale used.

I am also eagerly awaiting the release of the 90mm. If this also pairs well with the Raynox 250 then it will give you a range of 2:1 to 4.8:1 using the same scenarios above!! I find it exciting to have the ability to get to nearly 5:1 without needing a focus rail while getting excellent image quality.

Hope this helps.

Josh

[Lou Jost]

Additionally, the Oly teleconverter is not built for the 60mm macro so it requires tweaking the equipment which is not fun (i.e. you need an extension tube between the teleconverter and the lens).

I hadn't known that. If so, it may not be a great option. But extension tubes eat up working distance. Your working distances will be much longer with a teleconverter than with extension tubes. That's important. It might be worth doing something like this:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/ ... t-63115701

Another approach is to carry another lens for higher m. I now use the 45-175mm zoom (very cheap) with a coupled reversed lens in front of it (this can be a Raynox, which works well here). This still allows automatic focus bracketing and lets you reach 4-5x. There are some challenges with this, though.

[Neottia_bifolia]

Hi all,

I just wanted to say a quick thanks for all the thoughts. This is really everything I could’ve wished for in terms of expertise and recommendations that are hard to find elsewhere. While I’m sure I could’ve looked harder, I wasn’t even aware of many of the options brought up here, even after I did a few initial searches.

My week has gotten pretty busy but I look forward to replying and discussing more within the next week!

[joshmacro]

Additionally, the Oly teleconverter is not built for the 60mm macro so it requires tweaking the equipment which is not fun (i.e. you need an extension tube between the teleconverter and the lens).

I hadn't known that. If so, it may not be a great option. But extension tubes eat up working distance. Your working distances will be much longer with a teleconverter than with extension tubes. That's important. It might be worth doing something like this:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/ ... t-63115701

Yes, that is the set-up I was referring to. I have tried it. It does work but I didn't stick with it. My experience is that image quality is just okay. Also, the set-up gets rather long since you have the teleconverter then the extension tubes and then the lens. I also would not buy cheap extension tubes like Pixco. They are garbage and provide a loose connection. To me, the real benefit of this set-up is having the ability to go even beyond 3:1 with auto-focus. The image quality won't be great, but you will not need any rail. The issue for me was that if I was going to go beyond 3:1 then I was going to do my stacking in studio anyway and therefore could use equipment that produced better image quality. In summary, if you are an experienced in-the-field shooter at higher magnifications and can compromise on image quality then this set-up is a pretty good option. Otherwise, it didn't seem worthwhile and now seems a bit less worthwhile since the 90mm will be releasing.

[Lou Jost]

To me, the real benefit of this set-up is having the ability to go even beyond 3:1 with auto-focus.

Yes, any solution has to maintain that ability. I just don't like the loss of working distance with extension tubes, and since this is a lens with floating elements, a teleconverter should give better quality than the tubes.

I do up to 5x automatic focus bracketing in the field with the zoom + reversed lens. Not easy, but the only way to go for some subjects. Optical quality is very good.

[dolmadis]

[quote="Lou Jost"

I do up to 5x automatic focus bracketing in the field with the zoom + reversed lens. Not easy, but the only way to go for some subjects. Optical quality is very good.

Hi Lou

Could I ask please which reversed lenses you use give you the best results with the zoom you referred to earlier?

Thanks, John

[dickb]

A 1.4x or 2x teleconverter would be your best mid-budget solution. These preserve your working distance, unlike extension tubes, which I DO NOT recommend for your applications. The 1.4x will retain more image quality than the 2x.

The lowest-cost solution is a close-up lens. The Raynox mentioned above is a good choice, but there are other slightly better alternatives, though these are more costly. I did a test of close-up lenses and found a Precision Optics filter that was better than the Raynox, though hard to find and expensive. I don't remember which one it was, unfortunately...

It is unclear to me why Lou tries to steer you away from extension rings. They may well be the best solution to your problem. Extension rings give you more working distance at a given magnification than close up lenses do.

The options mentioned in this thread all have their pros and cons. If working distance is important to you, you should consider what the various options do to the focal length of your optical system. The focal length at a given magnification determines the working distance.

Modern macro lenses like the Olympus 60mm use floating elements for close focus. This means the focal length is reduced the closer you focus. At 1:1 the remaining focal is 37.54mm instead of 61mm at infinity:

https://www.photonstophotos.net//Genera ... sO,OffAxis

Floating elements allow designers to keep the lens small and correct for optical quality at different focus distances.

Old fashioned lenses without floating elements only use extension to focus closer and must extend a lot when focussing to 1:1 - a 60mm lens must be 60mm longer at 1:1 than at infinity focus. It is harder to design a lens without floating elements to be perfectly corrected at all focus distances. The focal length of the lens remains the same in the whole focus range. The same thing is true when you add extension rings or a bellows.

Using close up lenses reduces the focal length of the optical system, so you gain magnification at the cost of working distance.

Teleconverters increase the focal length of the system, so you gain magnification at the cost of light, 1 f/stop for a 1.4x converter or 2 f/stops for a 2x converter. Also the image quality is slightly reduced by the teleconverter. If your lens is very sharp and your converter is high quality and well matched you may gain significant resolution by using a teleconverter. If your lens doesn't outresolve your sensor you may well get equally good results just cropping the photo without a teleconverter.

So in conclusion, all options can give you good results. Close up lenses are relatively cheap and easy to use, but you lose working distance. Extension rings are relatively cheap and give you more working distance. Teleconverters give you the most working distance, but are more expensive.

You can also combine these options if you want more magnification.

[Lou Jost]

It is unclear to me why Lou tries to steer you away from extension rings. They may well be the best solution to your problem. Extension rings give you more working distance at a given magnification than close up lenses do.

Dick, you sort of answered your own question when you explained about floating elements. Using a teleconverter leaves the floating elements in the correct place to control the aberrations at the given working distance. With extension tubes the position of the floating elements is not correct.

And as you pointed out, extension tubes provide magnification at the price of working distance. Teleconverters preserve working distance. I shoot the same subjects as Simon, in the same forests, and I am confident that under these conditions, preserving the working distance is the correct priority. I completely agree with you that there is no one best solution for all applications, and all of the mentioned solutions would work reasonably well. I do use close-up lenses when I need just a small boost in m. I tyry to avoid long extension tubes with lenses thaty use floating elements, and I think that is a good default rule to follow in macrophotograpnhy.

[Lou Jost]

Hi Lou

Could I ask please which reversed lenses you use give you the best results with the zoom you referred to earlier?

Thanks, John

John,
Sure, here is what worked well for me, organized by field of view, from 5x to 1x. Step sizes for auto-bracketing refer to Oly PEN-F cameras; Panasonic G9 step sizes should be about 2x the Oly sizes:

3.4-5mm Apo Xenoplan 35 f/2.8 or a bit higher, step size 4
4-5mm Mitu 2.5x QV Step size 2, maybe larger.
5-7mm Oly Four-Thirds 50mm macro f/4 ½ or perhaps higher, step size 1, maybe 2.
6-8mm Apo Comp 60 f/4 ½, step size 3?.
9-11mm Oly Zuiko 90 f/2 @ f/4-8, step size 2-3
11- 17mm Raynox 250, forward mounted. Low m step size 2, high m step size 3. Useful also down to about 6mm.

By 4x or 5x the stacking depth was very limited.

[dickb]

It is unclear to me why Lou tries to steer you away from extension rings. They may well be the best solution to your problem. Extension rings give you more working distance at a given magnification than close up lenses do.

Dick, you sort of answered your own question when you explained about floating elements. Using a teleconverter leaves the floating elements in the correct place to control the aberrations at the given working distance. With extension tubes the position of the floating elements is not correct.

And as you pointed out, extension tubes provide magnification at the price of working distance. Teleconverters preserve working distance. I shoot the same subjects as Simon, in the same forests, and I am confident that under these conditions, preserving the working distance is the correct priority. I completely agree with you that there is no one best solution for all applications, and all of the mentioned solutions would work reasonably well. I do use close-up lenses when I need just a small boost in m. I tyry to avoid long extension tubes with lenses thaty use floating elements, and I think that is a good default rule to follow in macrophotograpnhy.

Lou, I agree with everything you say apart from your wording about extension tubes providing magnification at the price of working distance. Floating element focussing and close up lenses extension tubes give you magnification at the expense of working distance. Extension tubes give you magnification at the expense of some loss of image quality and some working distance, but a lot less than floating elements or diopters. You therefore gain working distance when instead of a close up lens you use an extension ring.

If working distance is the highest priority, you may gain working distance by focussing the lens to infinity and use extension rings to focus closer. Not ideal optically of course. But teleconverters reduce image quality as well. Have you ever tested whether using a 1.4x teleconverter gives you more useful resolution than cropping in your system?

[dickb]

3.4-5mm Apo Xenoplan 35 f/2.8 or a bit higher, step size 4

Interesting. Is yours the Apo Xenoplan 35/1.8 or the Apo Xenoplan 35/2.0?