I just picked up an OM 50mm f/2 macro that I don't exactly _need_, but I'd been looking around for one for a while. I really liked the image quality of the Oly 50mm f/3.5 macro, but it was just too slow to use as a walkaround for my style. I was considering the Leica and Contax f/2.8 60mm macros, but f/2 is f/2.
Anyone have any personal experience with this lens? I'm sure it's great near MFD, but how is it for longer street-style photography? Wide open?
Owners of the 50/2 macro, please post some not-closeup pics so I can see its bokeh. This and aperture might be the only reason it costs 3-4x the f/3.5 small brother.
I'll be glad to do that in a couple of weeks, once I have not only the lens but an adapter. (I'm out of OM-EOS adapters.) Of course, aperture is a pretty big reason for a lens to cost much more than another similar lens. Canon has its share of lenses that are one stop faster and >5x the price. The Oly is nearly two stops faster.
pdmphoto wrote:
The Oly 50/2 macro is a great all around lens. I tested it at all distances and didn't see a weakness. Mike Johnson of LL likes it also:
It is quite flat field of course and the bokeh is much much better than its slower brother--but not in every situation to my liking. Perhaps a smidge sharper than the 50 f1.4 sn>1.1**6 in the center. I have all three. CH took some shots with 5D II--it is in the archives and I can't imagine he would mind. (basically to show resolution only) http://lists.tako.de/html/Olympus-OM/2009-05/msg00434.html
Michael Gordon wrote:
It is quite flat field of course and the bokeh is much much better than its slower brother--but not in every situation to my liking. Perhaps a smidge sharper than the 50 f1.4 sn>1.1**6 in the center. I have all three. CH took some shots with 5D II--it is in the archives and I can't imagine he would mind. (basically to show resolution only) http://lists.tako.de/html/Olympus-OM/2009-05/msg00434.html
For what it's worth, I've owned the f/3.5 macro and the f/1.4 s/n >1,000,000, and in my experience the f/2 macro outclasses them both. The f/3.5 macro is wonderfully small and sharp at all apertures, but f/3.5 is really pretty slow. The f/1.4 is a good f/1.4 50, but not really the best I've tested--and while it is very good at f/2, it's not as good as the f/2 macro wide open.
The only drawbacks I can see in the f/2 macro are (1) it's not super tiny like most other OM lenses, and (2) the focus ring requires a lot of travel to get from MFD to infinity (by design, of course).
B.T.W., I tested the OM 50/2 and Leica R 50/1.4 E60 (latest) side by side, both indoor and outdoor, and was stunned that the Zuiko beats the Leica in almost every test, except for at aperture f1.4.
Probably it is not fair to compare a macro lens with a fast normal lens. But what I found out is that the Zuiko has a much more flat field, better distortion control (the best among all 50mm lenses I have used), better CA control, More uniform resolution (use Mark's ABC zone method, the Leica has a worse "B" zone, "A" and "C" are comparable.)
The test was done several years ago, when the Leica was touted as the greatest 50mm SLR lens ever on this forum. From that time on, I knew the Zuiko is a keeper
I can also vote for the Zuiko 50/2 Macro. Simply put it is a great lens.
My only problem with this lens is that it isn't the best with regards to flare in high contrast situations. There is also some CA but you need to print really big to see it.
