Close-ups/ lenses

[ajohnw]

My range on M 4/3 is 12-50mm, 40-150mm and 100 to 300mm. I also have a 40-200mm but concluded that it's a waste of space so it will go at some point. I have used a 100mm macro lens but intend to switch to the 40-150 plus extension tubes. The lens I use least is the 40-150mm. I've added a 45mm F1.8 as it's a focal length I like to use and it offers a bit more scope than the zoom. I doubt if I will use it that often. The 100-300mm is my none camera brand make. It's a Panasonic. It may go Olympus at some point. Lighter and reckoned to be significantly optically better but at more cost. Wish I could find a decent test. On M 4/3 there is currently little choice on make of lens. As I see it Panasonic is the cheap option and Olympus cameras will correct for their problems - at the moment.

One quandary is a left over lens from my Pens. The 14-42mm zoom. I have a feeling that it's better than the 12-50mm optically but that might be due to the increase in pixel count on the EM-5. which in my view is a little insane. I suspect smaller shots can be cropped out of the 14-42mm.

I'm surprised you don't use something shorter as well Chauncy

John
-

[AB26]

Lenses - a fool and their money are easily parted.

Must be why the Professionals like their Canon, Nikon and Zeiss lenses. And don't forget those 1Dx and D4 bodies.

[GrahamS]

There is the profit margin aspect as well. I wonder how many people are aware that this area is a very major source of revenue for the corporations involved. To such and extent that the camera market is the major source of their profits. Sigma on the other hand make lenses. Olympus are in some respects envious of the others. I suspect that makes them try harder.


John
-

To put the record straight, Canon Corporation's main source of revenue is office copying & printing equipment, followed by digital radiography equipment, semiconductor manufacturing lithography equipment, FPD (Flat Panel Display) lithography equipment and pathological diagnostic equipment. Cameras and lenses are way down the list. Olympus Corporation's main source of revenue is medical equipment - I have just had a spell in hospital and there wasn't one piece of kit, from the blood pressure monitors to the chromoscopy equipment, that didn't have an Olympus badge on it. It is amazing that their camera division has survived the recent financial crisis. Nikon have a big chunk of the market in scientific imaging equipment such as electron microscopes, radio spectrometers, optical microscopes, laser optical components, military optical systems (as used in missile tracking, target aquisition) and telescopes /binoculars. Sony Corp makes it's money producing domestic television products, broadcast television equipment, OCR (optical character recognition) equipment and medical imaging equipment and electronic components including imaging sensors. I won't even start on Panasonic. The point is that in many instances, consumer photographic equipment is only a small percentage of gross revenue, yet requires large sums of money annually for R&D, in order to stay competitive.

[ajohnw]

I have heard a different view largely related to optical aspects from a consultant that a number of them use. He was a bit niffed as none of them were interested in producing a low cost mass market confocal microscope and and explained why. Remember we are talking profit not turn over and he pointed out that camera orientated profits are dis proportional to other products and make a significant contribution. I had no problem accepting that as it's not exactly a rare thing these days. Prices are set on what markets will stand in many areas not worth especially mass markets. Numbers sold are also closely related especially when final profit is added to the equation.

I would also disagree about R&D costs compared with many other fields that they are in as well. Again here only that cost compared with the total market value can be considered. In my view it's relatively low anyway as technology isn't stretched. As for instance it takes 4 days for Nikon to make one of their microscope objectives, or so they say and they don't sell many. Some times when people actually test things like this they find they fall short of their spec anyway.

Even the best camera that is typically used on here is essentially aimed at a mass market. SLR's of one sort or another always have been so that people can take great photo's on the beach as I usually put it. Hence auto this and that and a lot of effort at that end of things even to producing decent jpeg's whatever is in front of the lens.

Yes I agree Panasonic is an entirely different kettle of fish best not go any further into that. In some ways my previous summary is accurate. They have set out to fill a particular need and good luck to them.

As this all directly relates to my field I probably have an unhealthy interest in it.

John
-

[jcuknz]

Since I find all the technical discussion of absolutely no interest as I enjoy taking the photo and the content of the photo being the important aspect. I also use a x10 zoom which by all reports should be terrible but in practice as I concentrate of the subject matter I simply do not know or see what on earth people burble on about. It is the endless arguments and difference between the technician and the creator and if you are the latter you do not particulaly bother about all the T... the former write about It is important that the technical discussion progreses becuase without it the State of the Art would not improve but spare me from it It is also important that the newbie should not get too involved and influenced by it unless they aim to join the ranks of the techs which is engineering not photography.

[GrahamS]

I have heard a different view largely related to optical aspects from a consultant that a number of them use.
John
-

Really?

[ajohnw]

Really?

Yes afraid so.

Edited to repeat what I said initially. "I don't have much of a problem believing it" Getting factual figures would probably be rather difficult. Turnover / gross sales values don't have to relate to profit levels. Basically things are priced on the basis of what a market will stand not actual costs. There have been cases where companies sell at a loss. One famous one was NEC televisions. Losses were huge but the bloke who ran the company at the time thought they aught to have a presence in peoples living rooms. That sort of thing is probably old style Japan now but ...... it goes on.

Getting a bit off topic really.

John
-

[tao2]

I use a brand of Korean tires on my car - increasing numbers of manufacturers fit them OE too. Why because the cost less and perform just as well. Michelin in particular are a myth, in there hay day when the got their long life + quality reputation their wet grip was awful. Pirelli - look what's been going on in Formulae One. I wouldn't touch them from past experience. One or two other makes as well.. What am I - design engineer. What have worked on for about 15 years ABS.

Have to admit that if some one runs a Citroen that handles rather well it's probably best to fit Michelin.

Flashes - well maybe some can't do the sums.

Lenses - a fool and their money are easily parted.

John
-

Hi AJW,

Re. Michelin,

That's just as much tosh as the earlier post. Ah worked for Michelin for 32 years, ah do know what ah'm talking about. If ye bought Korean tyres from a UK dealer and they're not OE, then they were probably made in Dundee. Michelin makes tyres under licence (for the replacement market) for 19 different tyre brand names.

Ah do agree with ye about 3rd. party lenses though. Some are as good as the major players, some are better, some are rotten (like many "kit lenses"). As a user of old MF lenses mostly, ah'd encourage folk tae broaden their mind when it comes tae camera brand names . Problem is some folk feel they need tae justify spending several hundred pounds on a lens so a knee-jerk reaction is tae rubbish all opposition ...

[ajohnw]

Hi AJW,

Re. Michelin,

That's just as much tosh as the earlier post. Ah worked for Michelin for 32 years, ah do know what ah'm talking about. If ye bought Korean tyres from a UK dealer and they're not OE, then they were probably made in Dundee. Michelin makes tyres under licence (for the replacement market) for 19 different tyre brand names.

Ah do agree with ye about 3rd. party lenses though. Some are as good as the major players, some are better, some are rotten (like many "kit lenses"). As a user of old MF lenses mostly, ah'd encourage folk tae broaden their mind when it comes tae camera brand names . Problem is some folk feel they need tae justify spending several hundred pounds on a lens so a knee-jerk reaction is tae rubbish all opposition ...

Yes I know Mitchelin's wet grip is better than it used to be. Audio and Ford/Uk makes now fit Korean tyres OE - or so I am told. Me I used to run rayon belted tyres being a bit of a lunatic, SP Sports. These days that means Yokohama for similar performance levels and of course rapid wear. These days I fit quiet Korean.

John
-

[jcuknz]

From memory one of the very proficient contributors to that thread uses a longish Sigma zoom and extension tubes plus flash. The reason for the focal length is working distance and the zoom aids framing. The post where I asked him what he uses should still be their. With a suitable lens a cameras in built flash can sometimes be used. Depends on the diameter of the lens and the working distances. There is often adequate power as the distances are so short.John
-

As to if you use a close-up lens on the front or an extension tube behind is a personal choice and rather than expose the sensor to possible dust I prefer not to remove the lens from the ILC ... I am sure some will laugh at that but to date the thought of needing to clean that part of the camera is unpleasant

There is a side issue that the amount of extension required increases with the focal length which I have encountered with prime lens but without an auto extension tube I await the arrival of them to learn.

[Funny ---- To save postal costs which are quite horendous these days I arranged for a personal courier but instead of arriving in September it is now January ... fingers crossed ]

As far as the on-board flash I have mine set to minus one stop* and when I go for maximum magnification [ full zoom with 4 dioptre or 280mm AoV] the narrow angle of view sees past/beside the shadow cast by the lens from the flash quite close b eing in the camera body ... something one needs to work out for oneself with one's own gear. I usually remove the lenshood to fit the dioptre and it stays off until I return to normal photography

*This was my solution after reading several complaints about the on-board burning out faces in 'party photos' as one got close.
But I think now it could be more a problem with the proportion of light faces to dark surrounds upsetting Auto Exposure than the actual power of the flash being too strong. With big close-ups everything is pretty well at the same distance so AE is not fooled.

The old bug-bear of on-board flashes being too weak for any use I think is largely no longer correct ... but it seems as the on-boards have improved so the idea of throwing away light power with bounce flash and diffusers has gained popularity with users of hot-shoe or remote flashes. So if you are happy with the flat lighting the on-board should prove very useful until you start to do 'creative' lighting and simply use the on-board to trigger remote flashes.

[jcuknz]

Must be why the Professionals like their Canon, Nikon and Zeiss lenses. And don't forget those 1Dx and D4 bodies.

Professionals have different needs to the non-professional.... many amateur ape the professional choice becuase they think a more expensive camera will produce better photographs in complete ignorance of the fact that it is the grey matter three inches behind the camera that makes the better photograph although from a technical point of view when pushing the medium the expensive gear has the edge which the professional needs but is questionable for others.

[Inkanyezi]

Few here address the OP question.
To me it is evident that for bird shots, birds on the ground or at the feeding place or anywhere not very close, the long zoom will do a better job than the 70 mm macro lens. That does not suggest that the Sigma 70 mm macro lens is a bad one, only that it is not the best choice for shooting birds. It works a lot better for small bugs.

If you want to shoot real closeups with the telezoom, you might add a closeup lens to it, which works a lot better than extension tubes, as you can still use AF for fine tuning of sharpness, and the IS will still work as designed when a closeup lens is attached. So equipped, it may be used also for bugs, although the birds will probably stay at reasonable distance - the lens focuses down to 1.5 metres, so you cannot shoot any closer than that without a closeup lens. However at 1.5 metres, your field of view with the telezoom 70-300 is about the size of a credit card at the long end of the zoom and more like the size of an open pocket book at the short end. It is adequate for birds in the garden.

[revi]

As Urban reminded us, it might be useful to try and answer the original question

For birds, you'll need the 300mm (or even longer...), and you'll still need to get quite close, closer than most birds will let you if they can see you. Even when they let you pass by quite closely, they'll take off when you stop and/or turn towards them (magpies )...
Exceptions (in my experience) are gulls in tourist areas, and areas where the birds know they are safe (e.g. the bird parc in the French Camargue: flamengos and herons let you get close enough for decent shots). Or you'll need a hide.

For garden birds, the easiest way to get experience is to prepare a feeder near a hide. And a hide here can be a simple as a sheet of cardboard with a hole for the lens, or even closed curtains. And the next ingredient is patience... If you have a tripod, use it, even a simple one (in this case, you're in a protected environment, so no wind to disturb the camera). A remote release would be nice as well.

Wrt to the minimum focus distance and close-up work: that depends on the lens, closest focus for mine is at 0.5m ('macro' setting) at the 300mm end, that's close enough for larger insects and flowers. But if you really want to work on that kind of photography, a 'real' macro lens is better (90mm or even 150mm if you want to go for insects, both will give you 1:1 images). And they are also very usable at longer distances, and have very good image quality in general (as do most primes).

[jcuknz]

It is interesting how the manufacturers mis-use titles .... Remco tells us at 'macro' setting his lens focuses to half a metre or twenty inches which might be 'macro' if it gave you a subject a bit under an inch filling the sensor ... but no it is only a credit card which is a huge 85x55mm. So beware of what the lens does actually does before you buy.
Strictly speaking 'macro' is 1:1 or double extension when the subject size is the same as the image size. This means the true macro lens renders an object about 23mm high filling the APS-C sensor of the camera you are considering.

That is not to say that Remco's lens is bad in anyway ... just it cannot shoot true macro ... only the modern mis use of the word. Still we all know that words mean what we want them to mean

Earlier I mentioned that I had a 950mm AoV lens rig which was an improvement over the 430mm AoV I had been using ... the trouble here is that I am quite sure the birds saw this and moved further away so I am a firm believer that attracting birds with food or bird calls is the way to go, particularly after seeing the work of a local bird photographer who uses a 100-300 lens.

[jcuknz]

I have answered the original question earlier but in a nutshell ... the lens you need for birds and not BIF, is how you approach the matter and anything from a normal lens upwards works.

For BIF I think that somehow you need to get reasonably close to them as finding a quite fast moving object with the narrow angle of view of more than 300mm [460 AoV] is very difficult. Though there are things such a Red-Dot finders which give you a wide view but with a red-dot centred to indicate what the lens is seeing ... and we saw here awhile back a 'sports finder'* with a post centre and hole in top of post doing the red-dot job. I have baulked at the cost of either to date but for the keen 'birder' not an unreasonable price.

I have found the easiest was when I started with my x10 zoom at WA [28mm AoV] and zoomed in and tracked to the bird. In the situation , an easy one, the bird was a hawk circling above me but sadly 280mm wasn't enough to get the bird big enough in frame to satisfy me. Even 16Mp wasn't enough

*The traditional 'sports finder' was simply a wire frame usually indicating the standard lens's AoV. with a rear postand hole, whatever, to position the eye.
The sports finder of my first film camera back in 1946 or so