Which of the following lenses will work best for macro with ole m0doel Olympus E-1 camera mentioned here

  1. www.keh.com - OLYMPUS 28MM F/3.5 {49} OLYMPUS - 28 F3.5 (49)

  2. www.keh.com - OLYMPUS 50MM F/3.5 MACRO {49} OLYMPUS - 50 F3.5 MACRO (49


Lens 2. Its a pseudo macro lens. 1/2 magnification. (true macro is 1/1). And the focal length of it is typical for macro work. (90-105mm FF eq.). The 28mm even with macro extender wouldnt give much of a macro creamy bokeh look.

  • 1
    dpreview.com/articles/6519974919/… "What happens if the subject is the same size in real life as its projection? If we shoot a 1cm fly and its projection on the sensor measures 1cm as well, the magnification is 1:1. The 1:1 ratio has an important meaning for macro enthusiasts. Technically speaking, macro photography means shooting at a magnification ratio of at least 1:1. Therefore, a 'true' macro lens has the ability to produce a magnification ratio of 1:1, or higher." – Michael Nielsen Jul 7 '14 at 8:36
  • 1
    If "crop factors" were important in talk about macro, then you could say that a FF with any lens could give you 10:1 or 29:1 if you crop the image. In macro magnification is the major spec. thats why specialty macro lenses like navitar and zeiss use magnification in the spec sheets instead of focal length. It doesnt matter which camera you put them on. It doesnt change the magnification. It just changes your FOV. – Michael Nielsen Jul 7 '14 at 8:41
  • 2
    That's perfectly true, but also, if the smaller format has a higher pixel density, it may indeed be able to record more detail with less magnification. That doesn't change the lens, (obviously), but maybe it should change the amount of obsession over whether a lens is "true macro" or not. After all, it's the results from the total system that matter. – Please Read Profile Jul 7 '14 at 14:14
  • 1
    the trends Ive seen emerge is (dont know enough optics theory to state this IS the truth): the optics has a tendency to blur before you get to record anything if its not 1:1 squeezing the light is hard. in the link above notice how significantly sharper it gets at 1:1 vs 1:2 and 2:3. thats not the higher pixel count per inch alone that makes this sudden focus. thats also why the same lens performs better on FF than crop even if the crop has same/more pixels. – Michael Nielsen Jul 7 '14 at 14:34
  • 1
    I would put a [citation needed] after "[t]echnically speaking, macro photography means shooting at a magnification ratio of at least 1:1". It was never the case historically. – user28116 Jul 7 '14 at 16:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.