Anyone know what the smallest ~50mm macro lens is to adapt to a 5D? Looking to go to minimum 1/2 life-size for flower/leaf shots while hiking.

Obviously I don't want to sacrifice IQ just for a few ounces. Also, please include the Canon 50/2.5 in your comparison if you've used it.

The Zuiko 50/3.5 is supposed to be really good and very small. I have not used it myself but I have used the 20/2, 38/2.8, 80/4 and 135/4.5 a lot. Great IQ.

A

I have had the Zuiko 50/2. It was very good. quite small too.

A

wow, the 3.5 version just costs some pocket change.

Anden's suggestions are very good. To support what he is saying here are a few stats on weight. The Canon 50mm f/2.5 macro weighs 280 grams. The Zuiko 50mm f/3.5 weighs 200 grams and the Zuiko 50mm f/2 weighs 320 grams. So not surprisingly speed and weight go hand in hand. You might also consider the Zeiss 60mm f/2.8 "C" macro which weighs 270 grams and is also a nice performer. It comes in the Contax/Yashica mount and there are two versions. The "C" model goes to 1/2 life-size and is smaller and lighter. The "S" model goes to full life size and not surprisingly is a lot bigger. All of these lens like almost all macros have very nice IQ. For your purposes, however, the ultra small and ultra cheap (it only costs about $50) Zuiko 50mm f/3.5 seems like a great choice.

The Zuiko 50/3.5 is more like $100 and I have. It's very very good.

(1:1) 50/4 Macro-Takumar weighs 263g
(1:2) 50/4 Super-Macro- and Super-Multi-Coated-Macro-Takumars weigh 242g

Some of the (very) expensive and rare Micro-Nikkors are tiny, only a bit larger than a microscope objective.

I just checked that zuiko 50/3.5 but it's only for digital with electronic aperture, is that the one? How do you change aperture?

No, there is an Olympus OM version of the lens that is manual focus and has an aperture ring. Current prices at KEH are from $59 for a bargain condition to $89 for an excellent condition one.

Just my opinion, but the EF 50/2.5 CM really is such a good performer and is quite light and compact. This may be a case where little is gained by going the Alt route. On the other hand, I do hate its focus ring.

I had the 50 CM too. Having had both, I can say both are really good. Canon has AF and its colors are cooler. Zuiko has more neutral colors and is about a stop darker. Zuiko is way cheaper (relatively, not absolutely).

If you're going to use it for macro, AF is irrelevant. That's the reason why I'm looking at alternative manual focus lenses. That said, I do wish these lenses go up to 1:1 without any addon.

The Zuiko 50mm f3.5 is a very sharp lens and you really can't go wrong on the price either.

If you can find a 25mm OM extension tube or the 65-116mm Auto Adapter, you can achieve 1:1 or higher magnification with the OM 50mm f3.5. The OM extension tubes can be had for $30-$50 depending on condition.

If you want something even smaller and more magnification, the Zuiko OM 20mm f3.5 or OM 38mm f3.5 with Pt-MTob adapter can hook up directly on the camera with an OM-EF adapter making it the smallest macro combo ever - however, these lenses do extreme magnification and tripod mount with rails is a must for most macro situations.

Highly recommend the 65-116mm auto extesion tube with any OM lens - as the tube permits considerable flexibility with macro work.

I have two copies of the Z. 50mm f3.5 the Z. 50 f2 and all the "bellows" macro lenses but the OM 20mm. The 50 f3.5 macro is very sharp and will hold up to critical examination in the corners on a 5D--I haven't tried it on the 5DII yet. It is very highly corrected which might explain the harsh bokeh---that can be fixed in post but is not easy or fast for me. In the compositions where I want everything in sharp focus it is the lens of choice. The Bokeh on the 50mm f2 is better but is still very busy in some situations. One small neat kit is the Z. 85 f2. I t weighs 260gm and will focus to I think about 2.5 ft--it has a floating element which aids its close focusing. It is a stellar short tele and I just throw in a coupala ext tubes.

I will say for me, sometimes, rocking back and forth at macro distance and without a stabilizing instrument like either IS or a mono/tripod, I do use the AF, n0b0. But in the perfect world, for the best macro, I agree - AF is very looooow on the list.

Also, I thought for a time, like you do, "why can't these go to 1 to 1? for 50mm?" but after seeing how many different companies chose the "extender" route to get to 1:1, I reasoned they know better than I and it must be a functional or financial limitation for that kind of lens they'd rather not test. I'm talking size & economy.

n0b0 wrote:
If you're going to use it for macro, AF is irrelevant. That's the reason why I'm looking at alternative manual focus lenses. That said, I do wish these lenses go up to 1:1 without any addon.

I have a pre-set Pentax 50/4 macro lens (1:1) that I'd recommend to anyone. Have a Vivitar 55/2.8 on the way here now based on some excellent reviews.

Would not t he weight of an adapter be necessary into the equation? Comparing one lens with another, when one requires an additional adapter for use on said camera-might equal the equation.

the OM 50/3.5 macro is a serious steal in the current market. Back in the day it was $200-250, about the same price as the OM 50/1.2 (which sells for $450+ now). Really, you can't go wrong with a $75 OM 50/3.5, it's such a crazy good price I can't figure it out.

-Ed

sirimiri wrote:
I will say for me, sometimes, rocking back and forth at macro distance and without a stabilizing instrument like either IS or a mono/tripod, I do use the AF, n0b0. But in the perfect world, for the best macro, I agree - AF is very looooow on the list.

Also, I thought for a time, like you do, "why can't these go to 1 to 1? for 50mm?" but after seeing how many different companies chose the "extender" route to get to 1:1, I reasoned they know better than I and it must be a functional or financial limitation for that kind of lens they'd rather not test. I'm talking size & economy.

If you frequent the macro forum here, you'd know that I'm use the MP-E 65mm. It doesn't even have a focus ring let alone AF. It's far from a perfect world for me and yet the AF is not even on the list.

If those adaptors are anything like the Canon's Lifesize adaptor, it's basically a 1.x TC + extension tube in one. Of course it'll be cheaper for them to produce it instead of a native 1:1 lens. What it means for me is that I lose a little in image quality and focusing distance. The thing is, when it comes to macro, I don't take any compromise.

n0b0 wrote:
If you're going to use it for macro, AF is irrelevant. That's the reason why I'm looking at alternative manual focus lenses. That said, I do wish these lenses go up to 1:1 without any addon.

When shooting macro, yes, but many good macro lenses double as good portrait lenses or other such uses where AF comes in handy. The MP-E is well, specific to extreme macro photography, so AF would serve no purpose there, but in the case of the EF 50 CM it is handy.

That being said, I wonder how the nFD 50 CM macro would do? Once converted, if infinity was not a concern, it would even better 1:2 and comes in @ 235g. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

I'm not sure why we're discussing this, I clearly said "If you're going to use it for macro...". I'm only discussing the macro application of these lenses and besides, if you really need/want the AF, you wouldn't be in this thread anyway right?

In the 50CM x Zuiko 50/3.5 battle, I'd say it's a draw.
FWIW, I'll buy a 25 ext for my Zuiko.
And, well, if one can't talk about AF here, we should ban threads discussing, say, Conurus-converted lenses... peace!!!

Thanks, Alexandre.

Industar & a tube to get close. Not sure if it's good enough, but definitely very small and definitely cheap.

That wins! 65g... But very ugly!