My previous macro experiences came courtesy of a Canon 100mm macro lens bolted to a succession of Canon bodies. I am sure things have improved nowadays, but at the time I struggled with focusing via the rear screen (the camera always seemed to end up in a position where my eye and the viewfinder could not get together, and the rear screen facilities were somewhat inadequate), and the camera/lens combo seemed rather unwieldy when being negotiated through assorted shrubbery in search of beasties. Eventually I sold the lens to another foreign resident in Thailand who went on to capture some spectacular images; so it must just have been me that struggled.
But Micro Four Thirds seemed a much more attractive proposition for a relaxing macro experience. Smaller gear, with a fold-up viewfinder on my GX1, or the moveable rear screen on my E-M5; both would facilitate focusing without the need for contortions. I just needed a macro lens to play with. I considered the Panasonic/Leica offering for so long that eventually Olympus released their own macro contender and I went for that. A little bit lighter than the Panasonic, quite a lot cheaper and with a degree of weather proofing; it was an easy choice.
And the lightness of the lens is indeed the first thing you notice when you take it out of the box (185g, 6.5oz. 2.21 carrots); that and the fact that there is no lens hood.
Yes, true to form, Olympus expect you to lay out more cash for a plastic hood. When you first fit it on the lens and half twist it to extend it, you decide it is really rather good. Then when you are holding onto the hood as you are trying to focus the camera for a crucial shot, and it comes away in your hand in flurry of confusion and swearing; you decide it really is rather crap. You do get used to it, by the simple trick of never touching it once it is extended, but it’s not Olympus’s best design.
Putting aside the hood (which is easier to do than it should be), the lens is solidly constructed with a couple of interesting features. First, there is a distance scale showing the current focal distance. Personally I never get round to looking at it; but one day it might come in useful. Second there is a dial you can twiddle to set focus ranges. This is definitely useful.
Macro lenses have to focus over a long focusing range, from a couple of centimetres to infinity. Olympus recognised that this could take some time and introduced the range dial. Set it on the 0.4m to infinity position and you have a useful focal range for general use. If you are getting up really close for a macro shot, then change the dial to 0.19m to 0.4 metre. Want to set the focus as close as it will go; then just flick the dial to the 1:1 position and it will set closest focus. For those who insist on the maximum range and don’t care if they have to wait, the silver setting allows for the full focus range, and good luck if you choose to use that.
The dial is a good idea, but it can catch you out. Perhaps you are stalking a butterfly and want to get in a banker shot from half a metre away. This means you will have the dial on 0.4m to infinity. And so you creep closer, taking shots as you go; and then suddenly the bloody lens won’t focus any more. Then you remember you have moved into close-up range and so you have to move the switch to 0.19m to 0.4m. I find swearing (quietly) helps at this point. Still, with this system, the focusing is fast and accurate so I am happy to put up with the occasional confusion. And let’s be honest, I do confuse more easily than most.
I have tried taking macro shots without a tripod and using auto-focus; but given the millimetres of depth of field available, that approach just does not work for me. Instead I like to have the camera on a tripod and focusing set to SAF+M on the E-M5. I then use auto focus to get me generally in the focal range, and then zoom in for final precise manual focusing. Even with the smallest focusing box, you can’t be sure that auto-focus has selected the spot you require, perhaps something as small as an insect’s eye which you can’t even see properly without zooming in for a closer look. So I get in close and manually focus for the best results.
Small, sad footnote: All of the above, and many many more, were taken at a single hundred metre stretch of scrub-land not far from my home. Then one morning I discovered all of the plants and bushes had been cut down, for no apparent reason. I am currently seeking a new macro location.
I am very pleased with the Olympus 60mm macro. It’s a light and convenient lens and the macro results are very satisfactory to my untrained eye; sharp with very pleasant bokeh. But how about using the lens in non-macro mode?
I bought the lens at a photo fair and grabbed a couple of low-light shots just to make sure it was working:
ISO 3200
ISO 2000
But how would it cope as a general walk-around lens; and in particular how would it stack up against the spectacular Olympus 75mm? I carried out some tests to find out.
Image Quality
Olympus 60mm, F3.5:
Olympus 75mm, F3.5:
I walked a bit closer to the subject with the 60mm to try and get the same area of coverage, then cropped both shots a little. The colouration is slightly different, but that could be more down to the ever-changing light on the day rather than the lenses. Let’s have a look at a crop (click to view 100% size).
60mm:
75mm:
Here’s another. Again, the sun was darting in and out of clouds, and I moved my shooting position to obtain a similar field of view.
60mm, F2.8:
75mm, F2.8:
Crops (click to view at 100%):
60mm:
75mm:
A couple more crops, this time at F7.1 (click to view at 100%):
60mm:
75mm:
Finally, a simple field of view comparison between the difference between 60mm and 75mm. Both these shots were taken from the same point:
60mm, F2.8:
75mm, F2.8:
And here is the same shot with the 75mm at F1.8 to show the difference in bokeh:
75mm, F1.8:
Image Quality Conclusion Allowing for varying light and a variable photographer, what can we conclude from the above? My conclusion is that the 75mm is slightly better, but you have to pixel peek to see the difference and there is really little to choose in overall image quality between the two lenses.
Handling and other considerations: The 60mm is smaller and lighter than the 75mm and is dust and splash proof, although the 75mm’s metal construction feels more substantial. The 75mm focuses slightly slower than other M43 lenses, the 60mm, like most other lenses, focuses almost instantaneously on the GX1. The 60mm is 2/3 of the price of the 75mm.
Conclusion The Olympus 60mm Macro gives you not only a macro lens, but also a general purpose lens with very respectable performance. Personally, if I was needing that sort of focal length, I would always take my 75mm; the F1.8 does make a difference and the images it pumps out are just so special. But it’s good to know that the 60mm macro is more than just a macro.
Highly recommended.