E-Series U/W Macro Lens Comparison

[rcolman]

I recently did a dive on the wreck of the Yukon in San Diego, CA intending to take shots of similar subjects with my E-300 using both the 35mm macro and my newly acquired 50mm macro. The lenses were swapped in between dives, so it was impossible to exactly replicate each shot. (As a comic note, on this particular day, viz. was outstanding and I was stuck with macro lenses. Oh well.)

Trying to take comparison macro photographs underwater turned out to be more challending than I thought. In addition, I mistakenly set the camera to aperture priority mode at f/5.6. This can give me reasonable results with the 35mm lense, but DOF of field on the 50mm lens is razor thin at this f-stop and many of these shots were out of focus despite the fact that the camera autofocus thought that it was locked on.

You can find the comparison images at:

http://www.ocdiving.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=9385

where full-size images are available. The images are processed to correct the raw images for typical underwater problems.

Hope you find these of interes.

Rick Colman
Laguna Hills, CA

 

[jlyle]

Rick,

What's your opinion of the "primes" versus the 14-54mm?

Jim

 

[rcolman]

Rick,

What's your opinion of the "primes" versus the 14-54mm?

Jim

I don't really have an opinion, because I never really thought about doing the comparison. It would be interesting to dig through my image archives to get comparison shots of the 35mm Macro vs. 14-54 at 35 mm, although I am not sure that I would have much. I will do a comparison dive one of these days to see if I can tell a difference.

One thing, though, is that the 50mm lens is really just a macro lens underwater. Seems that you really can't do anything but macro because the focal length is just too long, unless you are in really clear tropical waters, which is not SoCal for sure.

The 35mm lens is short enough to be a fish lens as well, so it is a bit more versatile.

I just got my E-330 body and will shortly purchase an Ikelite housing. Then, I will take both lenses down to see whether the F/2 vs. F/3.5 will make a significant difference in live preview.

Rick.

 

[alcina]

Be interesting to watch for your results! Thanks for taking the time to do this, it will likely be helpful to others who are considering things.

Then, I will take both lenses down to see whether the F/2 vs. F/3.5 will make a significant difference in live preview.

Rick.

I'm a little confused - you aren't shooting macro at these apertures are you? You're just seeing if the faster lens is worth it?

 

[SuPrBuGmAn]

Do the 35 and 50 fit in the same port?

 

[rcolman]

yes they do.

 

[Fota]

Thanks alot for posting the photos and making the comparisment.

But, am I the only one finding these photos pretty noisy (when looking at the high 1:1 resolution)?

I was really expecting much more form an E-300 with dedicated macro lenses as the quality I get from my cheap 7070 is better or much better... (in macor and super macro mode when shooting in green dark water with bad visibility with a single DS-125).
I'm starting to get second thoughts about my planned upgrade to an E-330 (with 35mm and 14-54mm lenses)...


/Fota

 

[jlyle]

Thanks alot for posting the photos and making the comparisment.

But, am I the only one finding these photos pretty noisy (when looking at the high 1:1 resolution)?

I was really expecting much more form an E-300 with dedicated macro lenses as the quality I get from my cheap 7070 is better or much better... (in macor and super macro mode when shooting in green dark water with bad visibility with a single DS-125).
I'm starting to get second thoughts about my planned upgrade to an E-330 (with 35mm and 14-54mm lenses)...


/Fota

I sent Rick some full resolution u/w images taken with my E-330 - he compared them to his 300 images and thinks the noise at higher ISOs with the 330 is half that of the 300.

 

[rcolman]

I just took some test shots (open sky) with an E-300 and E-330, using the same 50 mm macro lens.

At full resolution, the E-300 is noisier than the E-330. I can mount some test images if you would like, but, in general, the E-330 noise appears to be "1 F stop" better, e.g. images shot at ISO 200 on the E-330 look like images shot at ISO 400 on the E-300.

But, you know, it is not the camera, it is the photographer. Maybe you are a better photographer than I am ...

Rick Colman

 

[Fota]

I just took some test shots (open sky) with an E-300 and E-330, using the same 50 mm macro lens.

At full resolution, the E-300 is noisier than the E-330. I can mount some test images if you would like,
Rick Colman

Please do!

but, in general, the E-330 noise appears to be "1 F stop" better, e.g. images shot at ISO 200 on the E-330 look like images shot at ISO 400 on the E-300.
Rick Colman

You mean the other way around don't you?
Images shot on the E-330 at ISO 400 have about the same noise level as images shot on the E-300 at ISO 200.
Or?

But, you know, it is not the camera, it is the photographer. Maybe you are a better photographer than I am ...
Rick Colman

Haha, yeah right! ;-)


/Fota