![Free Free](/uploads/1/2/5/4/125465233/538616266.jpg)
In the leadup to Photokina 2012, Olympus announced the 60mm ƒ/2.8 macro lens for micro four-thirds. Small and light, the lens produces an effective focal length of 120mm when mounted on mFT. I really like the macro capabilities of this lens. When I was shooting with my Canon 7D, I used the 100mm Canon macro lens. I find the 60mm F2.8 Olympus Macro lens capable of producing photos as good as the much more expensive Canon macro lens.
Hi Steve, nice review and exceptionally excellent blog indeed! It seems to me the Olympus 60mm is the optically superior lens when compared to the old Panny 45mm; but I’m stuck with my faithful GF1 and I’ve got no plan whatsoever to upgrade to an Olympus OM-D so practically I have to live without any IS if I go for the Olympus 60mm.
Do I really benefit from any IS when shooting macro? For portraits I know IS of any form will help a lot during low lights but for macro? In my region, I can actually get both the Olympus 45mm F1.8 (which is the superior portrait lens, if I understand correctly) & the 60mm F2.8 for the price of a single Panny 45mm F2.8; but the biggest question remains: how much do I benefit from the IS when shooting macro? It would be a huge bet either way as return policy doesn’t exist at all over this side of the globe – either stick with it or sell it. First of all, nice review, Steve!
And, I do agree, the M4/3 system has some fantastic lenses. That said, despite some very nice features, the M4/3 cameras, including the arguably (my opinion) over-hyped OM-D, are not for me.I could not imagine taking delicate-focus, macro shots with an OM-D, as I have found the AF to be terrible for delicate focus shots in general.
A few months ago, I borrowed my friend’s OM-D for about an hour and tried to take delicate focus, shallow depth of field shots of the tips of lavender and other flowers in excellent light with a 40 or 50mm equivalent lens, and I was shocked at how terrible it was. From my experience, for any subject smaller than the focusing square, the OM-D has a tendency to select the background instead, which is unacceptable. Although I found a way around this – set focus on another subject of similar distance and then refocused on the smaller subject – it was very annoying and not fast at all!Shockingly, though the OM-D may be faster, when I tried a Fuji X-Pro 1 and X-E1, which are known for having slow AF, they were far more accurate: I did not have any troubles focusing on subjects smaller than the AF square with the Fuji’s with the 35mm f/1.4. Though I am neither an Olympus or Fuji user yet, if I were to get a mirrorless camera at the moment, I would not even consider the OM-D, primarily because of its inaccurate AF for delicate focus shots, but also because of its lack of sufficient dof control and its inferior image quality compared to the Fuji X series and NEX series cameras.
Without the AA filter, the sharpness of the Fuji’s is very impressive too.I guess, for those who want to shoot delicate-focus macro shots with an OM-D, they should perhaps just shoot manually, which would allow them to avoid using its highly inaccurate AF system for those types of shots. And, I am sure, for any subject larger than the AF square, the OM-D’s AF should be sufficient.I was hesitant to share my opinion, but felt the need, due to the internet hype about the OM-D, which I believe is misinforming a lot of people. Although the OM-D has a lot of nice features (image stabilization, weather sealing, etc), the auto focus is highly inaccurate for any subject smaller than the focusing square, which means it is not as fast as people claim. If you just shoot subjects larger than the focusing square, I am sure the AF is sufficient.
However, if you also like to take delicate focus shots (including, but not limited to, macro shots) and do not want to rely on manual focus, I would not recommend the OM-D, as the AF for those types of shots is inaccurate and frustrating, contrary to what the reviews will lead you to believe!. Thanks for reading.but, I think you may have either been using a dud or did not have it set up correctly. If anything, the OM-D for me has never given me focus issues.
The NEX series on the other had has been awful for just what you describe, as well as the Fuji X-Pro 1 I have tried (twice now). The OM-D has been an amazing workhorse for me and never did this lens misfocus for me (unlike the Fuji 60 macro which is much slower and misses focus quite often). My review is not misleading in the least because I never have seen the issues you describe here. AF works just fine with this lens.in fact, it is quite excellent. Much more accurate for me then the NEX-6/7 or Fuji X-Pro. IQ stands toe to toe as well.
Maybe not DOF but IQ is just fine for even large prints. WHen printed it is the image itself that matters.the subject matter.
Any camera out today can do just fine in that dept. Hi Steve,The lens was not a dud and it was set up correctly. As I mentioned, the AF issues that I encountered were for subjects smaller than the AF square. For those shots, it had a tendency to select the background instead of the smaller subject. A few days after, I asked another one of my friends, whom is a OM-D user and loves that camera (and, is a good photographer, who has been shooting for most of his life), if he has encountered the same issues, and he agreed that it wasn’t great for those types of shots, but can get around the issue as I did – set focus on a larger subject at a similar distance and refocus on the subject.And, I do agree with you about the Fuji 60mm: it is terrible for focusing.
And, I haven’t used a Fuji X series camera enough to determine if the AF is sufficient to satisfy my needs with other lenses.By the way, I wasn’t saying that you are misleading anyone in this review. I have never tried this lens, and the sample images that you have posted above appear to be subjects larger than the focusing square. I just wanted to mention what I have experienced when using it, as I found it wasn’t for me.
I don’t have those issues with my DSLR, but would like to find a smaller camera to replace it, especially for traveling.Have a great evening! Sorry if I offended you. I’m not a macro shooter neither.
This Macro lens surely is a stunner. But If Ii buy another lens for my om-d, it will certainly be the 75 1.8.Of course They both are pretty long for a walk around lens. In fact, they’re both not suitable as walk around lenses.
But once you decide you want to take some telephoto shots, the 75 might be the better choice. It is equally sharp, faster and has better AF. The wider aperture will also serve to achieve what I am looking for a long time now. To take full body portraits with blurred or at least distinctly softened backgrounds.If you’re into macro though, of course this thing is the best you could get. It is lighter, smaller and much cheaper than the canon ef 100 2.8 is macro l-lens but seems every bit as sharp. The smaller sensor moreover helps to widen the dof, which comes in handy when taking macro shots, I guess. Dude, Steve, great macro images and article.
You are totally ruining me though, well my bank account that is. I have the Oly5 and dang, its an amazing beast.
I’m selling my x100 to get a second Oly5 body. A while back I read your review and it put me over the edge to buy it and a few other goodies. The Oly5 is truly an amazing camera and much, much sharper than my Canon EOS 1D Mark III and L glass. Now look what you’ve done, I’ll have to go tell Santa to bring me the 60mm Macro and the 75mm 1.8. Gonna be a sliver Xmas at my studio. Keep up the awesome blogging. П™‚ Agree on Vignetting, but thats an effect for it self 😉 though Hopefully not too much!!!The Adapter.
Guess that exists! Try google it or just search amazon, i just found some though they come cheap 25$ at most (amazon, Fotodiox!!!) but surely if there was a Novoflex Adapter it would be 200$+, Well i think im gonna hold it right here and use the sony 30mm macro but hell i just found a!! Yasuhara Nanoha Macro with freaking 5:1 magnification and on Lens 3 LEDs!!! (for 500$), is there any one tested that lens???? Here is the link:And after ALL THANKS BEN 😉 😀. I agree with EVERYTHING that Steve had to say about the camera market and especially MFT cameras.I own and love my OMand even tho I have the Pany Leica 45mm f/2.8 IS Macro for MFT (all I will ever need), it would appear that this lens is a great buy and an incredible performer.MFT is an incredible format, especially with the OMD and now the EPL-5 with the same sensor in a smaller, less expensive (and getting cheaper every day) package. There is a lot to like out there in the market place and it is nice to see that this corner of that marketplace is recognized here!!!!MFT is so great because of all of the lenses for every budget and need.
This new macro from Olympus just made it even better. It’s amazing how many choices there are for a format that is soooooo young.Great post, Steve!. Excellent review, Steve! The combo of the OM-D and this Oly 60mm Macro can indeed produce very sharp images. As good as the in-camera IS is, I can;t help but wonder if one would get even sharper images using a good tripod (with IS off)! That is how I shoot products, and I’m a Sharpness fanatic, as you can see from the images on my site. I just still have a slight bit of hesitation in moving from the Pentax K-5 (APS-C) to the 4/3 sensor of the OM-D.I am wondering how well the OM-D files would retain sharpness/detail in very large prints (24×36).
Jimmy borrows Matt Carman's alter ego for a gritty review of the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm f/2.8 macro lens.Special thanks to Matt for suffering for his art; for clarification, Red35 Photography does not endorse smoking!Check out Matt Carman's website here at www.mattcarman.co.ukMusic credits: www.epidemicsound.comPlease support us by subscribing to our channel @red35photography.You can get this cool lens at Amazon UKand that clever hoodAnd for more up-to-date stuff, check us out at the following links below:FB -Instagram -Twitter.