I'm looking for a Macro Lens and I'm wondering if anyone has views on the following:
Olympus 60mm Macro for micro 4/3, or;
Pentax 100mm WR macro on APS-C, or;
Olympus 50mm f3.5 Zuiko for film.
I use all three systems and was wondering what people think, but only really want to invest in one lens.  Currently leaning towards film, but other than that have no stuck in the mud views.

A 100mm lens would be a better bet. If used for caving it would be a bit big and difficult to focus. I get by with super macro on my Olympus TG 4. Some compacts give excellent macro due to the sensor size.

Can't comment on the specific lenses but a couple of general comments.

It depends what sort of photography you're intending to do. A longer focal length is good for animal or insect life as it will move you back from the 'circle of fear'. Shorter focal length lenses are lighter and easer to handle and good for static subjects. A cheaper alternative is to use a macro extender with an existing lens, although that would limit your focal distance.

Hi, thanks for the info.  The Olympus TG-4 does indeed look like an impressive bit of kit, and there's no doubting the quality of the pics Mr OR has posted.  I like the idea you can get an attachment that acts like a ring light for extreme close ups.
Just picked up an Olympus 50mm f3.5 Zuiko macro lens from e-bay for ?39.  Assuming it's not defunct when it arrives it'll play on an Olympus M4/3 camera with an adaptor to give a focal length of 100mm equiv. Can also use it on film cameras which I still use.  The minus points are obviously the added cumbersomeness, bulk and faffing about factor. (Maybe that's why some caving people have learn't to run away very fast when they see a camera  )
If it doesn't work out the TG-4 could well be on the top of a rather short shortlist, especially as the whole camera is cheaper than the other digital lenses.
Hmm... choices & decisions...

All " horses for courses " and ultimately down to what sort of photography you want to do. The " best " will always be something top of the range and four figures . I am still using my Olympus TG 2 for digging shots. It goes in my undersuit pocket every week. It must have taken 10,000 images plus now with never a whimper. I tend to use the TG 4 for cave macro as it can be hand held where a larger camera would need a tripod and more effort. Use a bit of card or something for pre focusing under ground. A black back ground will make the image appear sharper.

Look at the Pentax WG series.

The Old Ruminator said:

All " horses for courses " and ultimately down to what sort of photography you want to do. The " best " will always be something top of the range and four figures . I am still using my Olympus TG 2 for digging shots. It goes in my undersuit pocket every week. It must have taken 10,000 images plus now with never a whimper. I tend to use the TG 4 for cave macro as it can be hand held where a larger camera would need a tripod and more effort. Use a bit of card or something for pre focusing under ground. A black back ground will make the image appear sharper.

Click to expand...

Not bought any yet, but there are a range of accessories for the TG-4 which could turn what is already a great compact camera into something a bit more versatile. Not sure if anyone else has tried any of these? https://www.olympus.co.uk/site/en/c/Cameras/digital_cameras/tough/tg_4/tg_4_accessories.html

Did not know about all of those.

One from the digging session today. The good old TG2 still going well.

Far superior to anything that can be achieved by 35mm.

P.S., is that 'ambient light'?, or some supplement?.

A bit of both. Camera on Programme Auto and as usual a " selfie " as they are all getting fed up with me and my camera now. I only have 1,800 photos of the dig now. Probably the same amount deleted so the old TG2 is working hard.

Far superior to anything that can be achieved by 35mm.

Click to expand...

Certainly can't knock the versatility, quality and speed of digital, indeed it would be churlish to state otherwise.  I suppose they're almost different media types now.  There does though seem to be a film resurgence in various forms, and not just 35mm (Ilford & Fuji still make it).  For example Kodak are releasing a Super 8 cine camera around the back end of the year
http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Consumer/Products/Super8/Super8-camera/default.htm
and can even now get new Polaroid instant film type cameras.
https://uk.impossible-project.com/collections/impossible-i-type

The sheer ease of use and speed leads me prefer to prefer compacts even for macro. I still use the old BLF method we used with flash guns slightly amended to take ten photos and chuck eight out. Even loosing back scatter seems to work that way. Rule of Sod. Certainly you do have to be much closer to the subject with anything less than 100mm on 35mm and certainly dangerously near to subject on compact. Incidentally I dont use the zoom function on compact as it rarely seems to work well underground. Depth of field seems similiar for both 35mm and compact though there is some drop of in resolution at the edges of the compact image. Most of my final images have gone through Photoshop so any edge blurring can be cropped. Back scatter blobs can also be cloned out if not too many. In perfect conditions with time to spare 35mm will give the better image when used in RAW but then for me that's not the whole story.

Hi,
What's the old BLF method?  I'm intrigued! I reckon I use about 75% digital to 25% film.
I've recently had a go at using Super 8 cine film underground.  Works out at about ?20-25 a minute all in (you get 3min 20sec per reel) but currently cameras are cheap so that offsets it a bit. Need a bit more practice but it does have that 'wow, what is that' factor, got it digitised to edit, just now need to work out what to do....
To manage expectations: Star Wars was filmed on proper 35mm film.  Super 8 is a bit well, rather more grainy, and a ?60 budget is a bit less than what Disney can manage, so don't expect miracles, but it is fun to shoot.

Oh dear. I was afraid somebody would ask what BLF meant. ( The oldies will know. )

BLF == Bracket Like F**k. Ie use several different exposures for each scene by going above and below the f stop you have decided upon.

So easy now you can see what your exposure has given immediately and can tweak it in Photoshop.

All those tram lined slides we threw away ----