You will do well with this one.

This: AF is PERFECT for focusing stacking. Somebody needs to tell Chris.

The recent 8-25mm F4 has MF clutch as well.

Since MFT is perfect sensor for mirrorless cameras with computational photography capability (?)

Well said. I fully believe that since the OM-1 we need to flip the MFT vs. FF conversation to "What you give up when to you don't shoot MFT", rather than "what you lose".

This is the sole reason I switched to OM for macro photography

Macro on M43 always seemed more... something for me. Might do the same.

Shoot yall too? Dang it

They really started dropping interesting lenses lately, like 8-25mm. Tho I wish they released more non pro lenses.

MFT all the way baby! I love my GH5ii

Get the OM-1 if you do go back to M43, it’s the best M43 camera ever incl. image quality.

Hey I really appreciate that!

Relatively useless, unless you focus stack, which you'd have to do manually shot by shot with high-res mode. Photographing a plane with texture overlapping with the focus plane in a singe shot in high res mode could be very interesting. I would also like to know how the teleconverter impacts sharpness, there's the converter itself AND diffraction impacting sharpness together.

Nevertheless I’d like to see it for myself.

@@weisserth many of us focus stack a lot. I've never seen a TC that doesn't negatively impact image quality.

I've played around with my EM1iii with focus stacking and high res stacking, the end result is so much diffraction that you don't gain much. I use the 40-150mm f2.8, with the 1.4x teleconverter, with an 8 diopter reynox. The end result is that I can use a lower MM focal length to zoom in/out for framing or get insanely close with the whole system maxed out. The problem is that wide open there are lots of distracting secular highlights, and stopping down adds diffraction real quick. Lighting control is a must, I cover my subject with some white paper and put the flash on the outside of it trying to get the softest light possible, but even then its still a challenge to keep the aperture open. Things look great in the 1x-2x macro range, but when I get it up to the +5x range details are getting lost in diffraction, and we really are resolution limited. However my system acts very differently from this one, so it might not be as susceptible to the same issues.

And it’s awesome!

Chris completely misses the point of why this lens has AF.

Yes, he misses the whole point of the lens at all.

4:1

Could whack it on a Lumix G7 or GM5 or something.

My 100-400mm is for sale if you live in Ontario

Also MUCH more massive than the Oly 60mm.

@@JericTamayo I'm writing from Australia, so that will likely present issues. Thank you for the heads-up though - much appreciated.

It’s great we’ve got the choice of three macro lenses at different prices

@@patrickhopkinson1851 in Australia, there is not much difference in price between the 60mm and the 30mm lenses and a used 60mm is about the same as the 30mm new. Having seen some of Emilie Talpin's images on the 90mm, my lukewarm thoughts have changed to "excited". Sadly, my financial controller will be much harder to sway. (The 90mm will be nearly 4x the cost of the 60mm.)

ok

Agreed, although when the RF100 was released it even cost a bit more than 1.500 bucks. So the price went down a bit during the past few months. I'm guessing that something similar might happen with the 90mm 3.5. But overall I'm not surprised about the price, if the Stabilisation and AF work well and the sharpness is good.

Yes

It can. And with the fast focus motor this will work incredible will, even handheld.

That was my first serious lens i bought it was fantasstic

I still have and use that great lens! The only letdown is the lack of focus bracketing support and the size with adapter and lens hood attached

Manual focus is by wire only. Try focusing with the camera turned off. It also lacks a focus limiter which is an issue since it takes a while to focus.

@@diegoscopia Yes and no. When you turn on the camera the lens jumps into the predefined focus position. In my experience, this is reliable over power cycles. So while it is technically focus-by-wire, you can use it exactly like true manual focus.

@@hauke3644 yes because four thirds bodies default to infinity focus when turned off I believe. Some bodies allow you to change this behaviour. But ultimately there are no hard stops at either end of the focus so it's really not true manual focus. But it's nitpicking because it really is a lovely lens, one of my favourites for 4/3

This is why we need dedicated macro photography channels ;)

That is a fallacy, focus stacking rarely works out in the field, be it because of subject movement, wind, or the inevitable stacking defects which ruin the result even if the first two were avoided...

@@karlgunterwunsch1950 I have a great experience with focus stacking with not moving subjects and you can merge it later on the computer using the raw files, actually, I prefer this technique.

@@karlgunterwunsch1950 You should try it. I know of photographers who focus stack, hand-held, using an MP-E 65, a lens that has no focussing ring.

@@oneeyedphotographer I have yet to see a single successful stack - and that's from 20 years experience in the field. The problem is physics and no lens or software can fix the problems that come from optical laws when subject areas overlap within the stack. And even if that weren't bad enough (I have plenty of unsuccessful stacks from a plethora of tests and software to prove that point) the few times you don't run into these artefacts you end up with a result that may well be ok for a scientific documentation but aesthetically they are off as these images lack by indication of depth and size - much like flower pressings of the 18th century.

@@AnastasTarpanov Show me a single stack where you don't have to invent large subject areas because they were not picked up by the stack - as it is physically impossible to capture the area of the more distant subject detail that is partially obscured by a foreground element. For example look at what happens around the antenna of a bee or butterfly with regards to the legs or wings (whatever is beind). You end up with an inevitable unsharp halo around the antenna. This happens because in the shot where the more distant area is in focus the antenna is unsharp and has a larger magnification ratio because it is closer to the camera than in the image layer where it is in focus.

I have been stacking with the 60mm at F2.8. It seems a bit weird to have a bed of kangaroo paws, all sharp.

OIS only is still 6 stops from the lens alone. That's plenty.

I definitely recommend that lens.

It would be absolutely massive and you don't need f2.8 with a macro lens. If you want a similar FL for non-macro work, the 75mm F1.8 or the 40-150 F2.8 are way better.

Agreed

You would absolutely be able to! And with OM systems accurate colour, you easily see when they are getting nice and golden and ready for harvest.

@@niccollsvideo Thanks

I could buy a complete OM Systems system for around the price of an EOS R5 body. I cn also get 50 megapixels hand-held high resolution. Not always as good, but often good enough.

When did you try?

It goes to F5.0 at 2x.

"Forget about stopping down" let me guess - another person who misunderstands diffraction.

F3.5 of this OM should be just fine, I'm sure that the complexity and price of the lens come from making it usable at 2x, while keeping size manageable, otherwise what would be the point :) And there is built in IS, low weight, all the bells and whistles of a native lens. Maybe there is an effective aperture datasheet somewhere. I'm sure that there are extra optimizations at high magnification, so it's not like old barrel extending macros from 80s where you can easily estimate the light loss with old formula. It's not a fixed 90mm lens on 180mm extension tube ;) Anyways, I think this might be the most "luxurious" macro ever built, just too expensive for the common hobbyist like me :D

@@HUNrobar There's quite a few who do. I know of people who make a dozen shots, hand held, with an MP-E and then stack. It's what one does, photographing peacock spiders.

Me!!. And I love it!!

Thing is.... IT'S 8x FULL FRAME EQUIVALENT MAGNIFICATION with the 2x teleconverter, not 4x. What is your mathematics with this facts. It changes everything.

Magnification does not work like that. A 17x13mm subject will fill a MFT sensor on 1:1 magnification and a 35x24mm subject will fill a FF sensor on 1:1 magnification. Therefore you need about 2:1 magnification on FF to get an 17x13mm sized subject to fill the sensor and only a 1:1 magnification on MFT. 1:1 on MFT is 2:1 on FF and 2:1 on MFT is 4:1 on FF. Your calculations on effective aperture are wrong since we're talking about a telephoto lens here. With longer lenses you need to add pupil magnification to the equation: Effective Aperture = Lens Aperture x (1 + Magnification / Pupil Magnification) = F3.5 x (1+ 2/0.5) = F7 I'm assuming the pupil magnification is 0.5, since I can't calculate / get info on the pupils on the lens and most telephoto lenses are around that number. The Canon 180mm macro is at 0.5. So, the effective aperture at 2:1 at F3.5 on this lens is about F7. So, you're right, diffraction starts at f3.5 in theory, but I've happily used effective apertures of F8-11 in my macro shots without noticing any loss in sharpness. In macro, almost always the DOF overcomes the sharpness issue anyways. In my opinion, the diffraction limit on MFT is F8-11 and F16-22 on FF and most people seem to think so too. This lens is actually the sharpest at F5.6 (effective aperture of F11.2) according to Lenstip: www.lenstip.com/644.4-Lens_review-OM_System_M.Zuiko_Digital_ED_90_mm_f_3.5_Macro_IS_PRO_Image_resolution.html *(Don't take the numbers or the text on the review literally, they're mostly bullcrap. This is just to point out the fact that F5.6 seems to be the sharpest aperture setting.)* Edit: I was wrong, I just remembered that the lens has some weird motors inside and the lens becomes F5 at 2:1. So the effective aperture at 2:1 is actually F10, so it does have some noticeable diffraction at 2:1. I still wouldn't say that the lens is flawed. It's not really possible to prevent diffraction at 2:1 since with bigger apertures you would need to stack tens if not hundreds of images to get decent DoF. Laws of physics can't be broken, which sucks. Between 1:1 and 2:1 is probably where this lens actually shines, this lens seems to be surprisingly sharp.

​@@sweden_ove2074 And the 8x full frame equivalent magnification with 2x teleconverter is also wrong. Compare it with a map: If you have twice the map the magnification of the map also doesn't change.

@@te0pol159 Thats wrong: AD: Therefore you need about 2:1 magnification on FF to get an 17x13mm sized subject to fill the sensor and only a 1:1 magnification on MFT. 1:1 on MFT is 2:1 on FF and 2:1 on MFT is 4:1 on FF. You miss that on fullframe the virtually photographed "ruler in mm" will be also as twice as large on FF and therefore the ratio between sensor size and object size will be the same magnfication on FF and MFT. AD: Effective Aperture = Lens Aperture x (1 + Magnification / Pupil Magnification) = F3.5 x (1+ 2/0.5) = F7 Your calculation is wrong here (assuming your formula is correct): 2/0.5=4 and not 1, therefore effective aperture gets even worser: F3.5 x (1+ 2/0.5) = F17.5! If aperture is F5 you would get an effective aperture of: F5 x (1+ 2/0.5) = F25! Regarding link from lenstip: You clearly see that already at F8 diffractions kicked already in and reduced sharpness already.

@@floppyfloppler Oh right, I'm an idiot. The effective apertures are quite bad then. What I realised now, the lens should be at least F1.4 to have effective apertures under F8, but the DoF would be incredibly thin, walking around the lens could be problematic. The F5.0 aperture might actually make the 2:1 usable. Again, laws of physics suck. What I don't know is that if effective apertures need to be doubled to convert to FF though. So if an effective aperture of F8 is actually FF equivalent of F8 amount of distortion or F16. Would be great to know, but I doubt really anyone has that information except optic physicists. And true, the lens introduces some distortion at F8 but none at F5.6 like PhotoPills is suggesting. F8 is equivalent of FF F16 after all. The magnification stuff is right, you can find articles on it. And it would be false advertising, which is illegal and I doubt they would do that.

Did you watch the video? This lens is one-of-a-kind lens with great features. The price is pretty reasonable actually, Canon sells a 1:1 100mm f2.8 macro for over $1300...

@@te0pol159 Yes, it is a unique lens with great features and outstanding image quality. Everything I said still stands.

Please elaborate, how? I really want to know your reasonings.

Nope.

People have been saying that for over a decade, and we're still waiting for it to be true.

You forgot to add the second part of the saying: Long live Micro Four Thirds :)

The lens only weighs about 450g, why would you need a tripod ring? It's not going to damage the mount on the camera.

What's your experience?

Dude, the lens is only 450g. Basically doesn't need a tripod attachment from the lens

Lots of macro enthusiasts use heavier macro lenses from Laowa and others without a tripod collar.

@@bjnslc And I have yet to see a decent image from any of them in the macro forums I frequent...

OMDS is costly? Haha. If you know anything about macro, the price isn't too shabby. Yes, it's expensive, but it's a PRO-series lens and a one-of-a-kind lens. Olympus/OMDS has the best bang-for-the-buck products out of all brands if you exclude Laowa. OMDS' lenses especially are one of the best I've ever seen. The cheap ~$300 F1.8 lenses have better IQ than most Canon 'L' lenses. It's incredibly impressive, because the sensor and lenses are small, so any small imperfections will be magnified.