There are many macro alt lenses and most of them if not all are very good at least. Obviously Voigtlander, Leica and Zeiss are cream of the crop, but I am also interested about OM, Nikkor, Yashica ML and other more affordable specimens. I haven't seen much of a discussion about why would/should one choose one lens over the other in 50-55mm range for example. I understand they are all sharp, but what about vignetting, flare resistance, colour and bokeh rendering etc?
Please tell about your preferences and impressions and discuss the general (portraits, landscapes...) usage together with macro and closeup performance, and share the pics. Direct comparisons (also with non-macro alts) are most welcome!
I posted this previously in a Yashica thread but it's relvant here. Part 1 of 2.
Yashica ML MACRO 55/2.8. All at F2.8
It vignettes quite a bit, especially considering it's not a fast lens.
Sharp wide open.
Maybe it flares a bit, jurys still out.
Spherochromatism, or Longitudinal CA as some prefer to call it, is quite noticeable wide open.
I do like it overall but 1/ I don't always like such strong vignetting and 2/ although I regularly shoot such images I don't normally use so called 'macro' lenses so I have no other similar lenses with which to compare, such as Nikon, Leica R 60, Olympus Macros etc. I often use enlarging lenses and bellows for this kind of thing, or a Mamiya 120/4 with Mirex, and prefer to have control over tilt but I can't blame the ML for not having that feature. Overall I do like it and intend to keep using it.
It is a macro so the helicoid is suited to accurate focusing at close range and it can be touchy at longer distances and the CA becomes evident if the focus point is not exactly where you want it. This is actually the only reason I haven't picked up a Leica R 60 in the past as it's a little awkward as a general purpose lens.
michael49 wrote:
...
Come on guys, where are the macro lens lovers here?...
I own a Sigma 90, a Kiron 105, a Canon FD and Minolta Rokkor 100mm f/4 and some that still need mount conversion. But I have made no fine image with those up to now! I mostly use my normal lenses with extension tubes, and sometimes microscopy lenses.
The Zuiko 50/3.5 macro is highly corrected and quite sharp corner to corner but usually has nervous bokeh with distant backgrounds. It seems to hold up well with use on FF Canon. I have two copies of that lens and one Z. 50/2 macro that tends to have better bokeh but is a bit pricier.
50 macro in general is a bit limited in working distance. Personally, I think the 90-120 range is a perfect compromise for most macros while the 180-200 is good for insects. The 90-120 is also very good for portrait and landscape as well. I would recommend the Tokina/Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5. However, these followings are fine as well:
JohnJ wrote:
Nice self portrait, your reflection in the pupil.
+1
i'm quite fond of the rokkor 100/3.5, not so sure about the rokkor 50/3.5 yet. the tamron 90/2.5 is very good in sharpness and bokeh, but has rather muted colors and has issues with sensor reflections on my camera.
Sensor reflections from the rear glass element of Tamron 90/2.5 can sometimes riun a photo.
Rokkor 50/3.5 is soft in the corners up to f5.6,but has a very nice colour rendition.The worst 50/55/60mm macro w/o out of my 8 of this fl,but I like it for colours ,built quality and IQ at f5.6 and up.
Rokkor 100/3.5 MC macro is nice but big,heavy and much more prone to flare compared to the Rokkor 100/4.IQ wise they are comparable with a slight edge to 100/4.
. 
