- Messages
- 12,412
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes again.
There are adapters for the main brands such as Nikon, Canon and Pentax. Here's my 500mm Tamron with a Nikon mount mated to my Olympus E-PL5. The adapter cost around £20 from Amazon...
"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread
- Thread starter hillwalkinggirl
- Start date
There are adapters for the main brands such as Nikon, Canon and Pentax. Here's my 500mm Tamron with a Nikon mount mated to my Olympus E-PL5. The adapter cost around £20 from Amazon...
- Messages
- 3,616
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This is all very interesting. I guess the question is....will the lenses and adaptors perform better than my close ups with the leica 100-400mm
Whilst I do admire the real microscopic style close ups of insects, I don't really crave that level of detail, just sharper closer images of small insects and Bees etc. @woof woof
- Messages
- 2,983
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have a set of extension tubes, but prefer filter fit close up lenses, not any significant difference in quality, and don't have to take the lens off to change.
Only time I always use an extension tube is on my home made G3 "negative scanner", but that distance never changes, nor does the extension tube.
- Messages
- 2,983
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I doubt it. I have tried quite a few, I have adapters for M42, PK, Canon, T2, M39 and nothing I have tried has really given better results than any M43 lens.
I don't have any of the "classic" greats though
Though I would suggest that maybe the 100-400 is not the way to go. I find the nicest to use is the 45-150, which is small, light, very sharp and not expensive. As I found out lately, it is upgradeable to Power OIS, so you get the dual stabilisation (stabilisation is greatly missed on any film era lens).
I also use the 14-140 (latest version) which is hardly any bigger or heavier that the 45-150, and are probably the most used lenses I have. If I use the 100-400, I take a 14-140 on another camera, then I have 14-400 without changing lenses in the field.
One of the most common failure points of the 100-400 is the mount, the mounts on the lens break at the base of the bayonet lugs. I don't know how hard they are too break, and may not be that common, but common enough for them to be available on ebay for just over £100 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/28519291...yP36NsY+bcJ/kmV1nuQsK0pg==|tkp:Bk9SR-7Z_PL9YQ I have only ever heard of one person I know having one break, but I tend to be cautious and use it more in open spaces.
For close ups, the length of the lens doesn't matter, as long as you can fill the frame with what you want, but the 45-150 (or 14-140) allows you to fill the frame from a nice distance from the subject so as not to disturb it.
The 12-60s also work OK, but I find I would like to be slightly further away, which of course for me also counts out a standard macro lens.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 43,801
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
The lens length does matter in two respects. Firstly a longer lens will give a longer working distance which can be an advantage if the subject is likely to get scared and run or fly away if you get too close. Secondly I like the perspective a longer lens and longer working distance give especially for flower shots. I'm not really into bugs and the like so I can't say if the longer working distance and the perspective that gives is a good thing or not but I'd guess that it is.
- Messages
- 12,412
- Edit My Images
- No
Whatever does the job.
My old Ixus 70 works OK for grabbing shots of larger insects...
- Messages
- 2,983
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I did mention that
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 43,801
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I did mention that
You mentioned disturbing the subject but look at that sentence above. That's pretty definite and is what prompted me to post as IMHO the length of the lens clearly does matter... if you're interested in the different look longer lenses bring to the final image and I don't see you mention perspective above so thought it was worth posting.
I'm not out to nit pick and I'm not interested in wasting my own time making points that have already been made but in this instance and in my HO the length of the lens does clearly matter in two main ways... working distance (disturbance of the subject) and perspective.
Perspective is something that is maybe often overlooked.
- Messages
- 12,412
- Edit My Images
- No
When it comes to the argument about focal length for close ups, it's the old "yer pays yer money and yer picks yer problems".
If you need depth of field, you need to start with the shortest focal length you can get. However, that forces the front of the lens closer to the subject, as anyone who's cracked a cover glass while using an optical microscope with multiple objectives can readily confirm. If you need distance, you need a longer focal length but that reduces your depth of field. If you want to counter that you need to stop way down, which usually means you need a powerful light source unless, your subject is static..
If you need depth of field, you need to start with the shortest focal length you can get. However, that forces the front of the lens closer to the subject, as anyone who's cracked a cover glass while using an optical microscope with multiple objectives can readily confirm. If you need distance, you need a longer focal length but that reduces your depth of field. If you want to counter that you need to stop way down, which usually means you need a powerful light source unless, your subject is static..
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 43,801
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Depth of field remains the same for the same framing. So, if you're at 24mm or 150mm the dof will be the same for the same framing. You'd think the 24mm would give more dof (as the physical aperture is much smaller) but you'll be a lot closer to the subject to get the same framing and reduced distance reduces dof. The perspective will be different and that could create the illusion of changing the depth but it doesn't.
PS.
This is something people may be able to demonstrate for themselves if they have either a zoom lens or different focal length primes.
PS.
This is something people may be able to demonstrate for themselves if they have either a zoom lens or different focal length primes.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,616
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Must admit I have been tempted by the 14-140, the "Little Black Dress" of lenses as David Thorpe called it. I would likely sell the 12-60 if I did.
I do like longer lenses for close up of insects, take the last trip for instance, standing in the middle of the nettles and being able to zoom in on multiple insects with the minimum of movement and disturbance.
Butterflies can be extremely sensitive to human movement especially if landed on the ground. The longer lens allows me to fill the frame without stepping into their "fear zone" so to speak. And in general I like the reduced fidgeting and need for shuffling in when you can take aim from over a metre away with more speed.
I've done some nice close ups with the 12-60, but I find the 100-400 so much better to use and seem to get more nice keepers.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 43,801
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I've been reprocessing pictures with CS2023 and using the recently upgraded goodies.
I took this with my GF1 at ISO 1,600 and of course when lifting the shadows it was noisy. This is the result with the new software goodies.
That is IMO very good.
I know it's only ISO 1,600 but this is MFT in 2011.
One last one.
I took this with my GF1 at ISO 1,600 and of course when lifting the shadows it was noisy. This is the result with the new software goodies.
That is IMO very good.
I know it's only ISO 1,600 but this is MFT in 2011.
One last one.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,983
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Then that is the one for you
Certainly it works very well for you looking at your photos.
- Messages
- 3,616
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The one caveat to this is the stiffness of the lens at the last 100mm of zoom, and the fear I have over the durability of the lens as a result (or strain on the G9 body) so for this reason I am probably going to do more general close up work with other lenses. I'll be taking a trip with the trusty old 100-300mm Mega OIS, it's a lens I still love to use and will still give some good distance.Then that is the one for you
- Messages
- 15,778
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you are worried about the strain on the camera mount use it with a q/r plate on the tripod foot then tripod mount
Also a good way to carry it, strap attached to tripod foot and camera which evens out the strain.
Maybe think about a monopod if its only for relieving the strain on the set up and you when wandering about.
Recently bought a 200/2.8 and had to start thinking about all of the above myself, think I have it worked out now.
The largest lens I used on m4/3 until now was the 12-100 so had to come up with a few new ideas.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 43,801
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
This is something I've never really worried about. When I have my 100-400mm on my RF style GX9 (which is what I use that lens on) I carry the camera by the lens. Yes, that lens is a bit stiff but on the positive side I don't remember reading reports of broken mounts but of course I could have missed them. All in all life is too short so I'd just take normal care, like carrying the camera and lens combo by the heaviest item, and get on with it.
- Messages
- 15,778
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Panasonic 100-400 does have a possible issue with broken mounts. https://www.acecamerarepair.co.uk/100-400mm-damaged-lens-mount
Fortunately repairs are available at a not too crazy price.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 43,801
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
To put that into some perspective the link does say...
"Damage may occur to the lens mount and mount FPC if the lens sustains a knock or drop while connected to the body of the camera."
Interestingly the damage shown on that site is to the lens rather than the camera. I suppose a lot hangs on how big the knock or drop has to be. I haven't used my 100-400mm much but thought I'd post my views as the 100-400mm is on the large side for a MFT lens and added to that I use it on one of the smaller bodies. I think it is sensible to carry the combination my the biggest and heaviest item, in my case the lens.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,412
- Edit My Images
- No
A very long time ago I learnt that there is a good reason why longer lenses have their own tripod socket.
If there's a socket on the lens: always fit the lens to the tripod, monopod, shoulder brace or whatever!
If there's a socket on the lens: always fit the lens to the tripod, monopod, shoulder brace or whatever!
- Messages
- 2,983
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't think any one thought they just broke off in normal use
Yes, the damage is to the lens, as I described it.
I believe it is the angle of the knock or drop more than how hard.
- Messages
- 15,778
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Early versions of the Olympus 12-40 had a notoriously weak mount.I don't think any one thought they just broke off in normal use
Yes, the damage is to the lens, as I described it.
I believe it is the angle of the knock or drop more than how hard.
Didn't take too much of a knock to cause similar damage as mentioned re the 100-400
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 43,801
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't think any one thought they just broke off in normal use
Yes, the damage is to the lens, as I described it.
I believe it is the angle of the knock or drop more than how hard.
I don't read every post in this thread so perhaps wrongly I thought that what we were talking about was Keith's worry about the weight and stiffness of the 100-400mm and the possibility of damage to the mount in normal use. Rich then posted about strain on the mount and I perhaps wrongly assumed that this is also in normal use.
I was therefore a little surprised to see a link involving damage due to drops or knocks.
As I posted, I'm not too concerned by the thought of damage occurring in normal use. Regarding damage due to drops and knocks, I don't tend to buy kit with drops and knocks in mind as we're talking about what are delicate optical devices here and regardless of visible damage and breakages due to drops and knocks if we do drop or knock this kit without obvious visible damage occurring we do risk things being put out of alignment.
As above, it's not a big worry for me but it's something we have to think about to some extent. Personally I think the 100-400mm even when used with a lighter and smaller camera body doesn't pose any significant undue risk. Just don't drop it or bang it into walls
as even if you don't smash it you may put something out of alignment.
- Messages
- 3,616
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes the worry I have is from turning the zoom and that it sticks badly at around 320mm. You have to get physical to shift it which can't be good for the lens or the camera.I don't read every post in this thread so perhaps wrongly I thought that what we were talking about was Keith's worry about the weight and stiffness of the 100-400mm and the possibility of damage to the mount in normal use. Rich then posted about strain on the mount and I perhaps wrongly assumed that this is also in normal use.
I was therefore a little surprised to see a link involving damage due to drops or knocks.
As I posted, I'm not too concerned by the thought of damage occurring in normal use. Regarding damage due to drops and knocks, I don't tend to buy kit with drops and knocks in mind as we're talking about what are delicate optical devices here and regardless of visible damage and breakages due to drops and knocks if we do drop or knock this kit without obvious visible damage occurring we do risk things being put out of alignment.
As above, it's not a big worry for me but it's something we have to think about to some extent. Personally I think the 100-400mm even when used with a lighter and smaller camera body doesn't pose any significant undue risk. Just don't drop it or bang it into walls
There's a knack to it. With the hand underneath you can make a full turn to 400mm without it sticking. If it is stuck it's easier to zoom back to say 250mm and then run through to 400mm.
When I first had it I would think I was at full zoom but often stuck on about 320mm. Now I'm getting the technique right to avoid this most of the time.
The problem with hand underneath and full single turn is the flailing elbow, I know that the visible movement scares off birds in some instances.
- Messages
- 12,412
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm always happy to ask the stupid questions: you have got the zoom lock all the way "off"?
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 43,801
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
They do have a reputation for being a bit stiff. Mine is too. Luckily for me it hasn't been a biggie as I tend to use it at 400mm or not at all.
- Messages
- 2,983
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I asked that some time back
Mine is not the loosest of lenses, but I wouldn't call it tight.
- Messages
- 3,616
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes buddy
- Messages
- 3,616
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I had a better look today, it's actually around 250-300mm where it sticks worse, when you move it slowly and lightly it jams somehow.I asked that some time back
Mine is not the loosest of lenses, but I wouldn't call it tight.
If you make one full turn with a little more purpose it runs through the sticking point fine to 400mm.
- Messages
- 3,616
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I actually find it smoother and easier when I grab the hood and pull it out to 400mm.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 43,801
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 10,200
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My 300 is a bit like that. I always assumed it was when it needed to move the second extension. May be totally wrong.Mine's just like that. Looks like it's a feature
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 43,801
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Possibility.
- Messages
- 3,616
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't suppose it does any harm to pull it out from the hood instead of turning the body?Mine's just like that. Looks like it's a feature
It's smoother, easier and faster.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 43,801
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Well, I don't know if or how much damage you could do doing it like that but it's not the way it's meant to be operated. I suppose it'll depend on how the mechanism is made and what from. There used to be pull/push zooms but that's how they worked. I think I still have one.
One thing I have done is guestimate where it needs to be and set it before raising it to my eye by turning the zoom ring with my hand on top rather than underneath and I seem to be able to get it to zoom smoother like that. Might be worth a try.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 767
- Edit My Images
- No
I used some from FOTGA which have electrical contacts so allow any of my lenses to focus and control aperture.
The set you linked will need manual lenses to be able to control aperture and focus (you may already know that of course
)What I mainly discovered is I don't want to buy a Macro lens as its too fiddly for me
- Messages
- 3,616
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's very helpful, and these look like the smart choice, so I just ordered themI used some from FOTGA which have electrical contacts so allow any of my lenses to focus and control aperture.
The set you linked will need manual lenses to be able to control aperture and focus (you may already know that of course
What I mainly discovered is I don't want to buy a Macro lens as its too fiddly for me
- Messages
- 3,616
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yeah, I admire super macro shots, but for the most part, I think I like my insects close up and sharp but also how they look to the human eye.
- Messages
- 986
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
Brimstone Butterfly (male) resting on a Buttercup. No cropping to image.
Panny G9/Oly 60mm 2.8 macro lens. f/5.6, 1/1000, ISO-100, Aperture Priority. Basic editing, Jpeg, Handeld, Autofocus.
Cheers Paul.
Brimstone Butterfly (male) resting on a Buttercup. No cropping. by Tort Man, on Flickr
Panny G9/Oly 60mm 2.8 macro lens. f/5.6, 1/1000, ISO-100, Aperture Priority. Basic editing, Jpeg, Handeld, Autofocus.
Cheers Paul.
Brimstone Butterfly (male) resting on a Buttercup. No cropping. by Tort Man, on Flickr