It isn't a bad lens, in many respects it's very good, but having both the Tokina 90/2.5 and the OM 90/2, with their smoother bokeh, has spoilt me (plus, at near 50mm, the Zony FE 55/1.8 is also ?nicer? bokeh,) making the OM 50/2 rather redundant to me.
I do know that I have a very good copy of the OM 50/2, as Gordan Freidrich of OM-Labor, Frankfort, who specialises in OM Zuiko lenses, sold me his "reference copy", when he was unable to "improve" the first copy I'd bought, and sent to him for a service....that man is "brilliant", he falls over backward to go the extra mile to please! (Phillip Reeve has found him to be equally good)
jlehet wrote:
Got a nice copy of the 50/2 macro delivered today. I got it for under $400 from KEH (they had a 10% off sale). The bokeh seems very wonderful, not sure about the sharpness at wider apertures. If I carry it, it will be as an anti-zeiss. It's probably even more un-zeissy than the OM 50 1.4. Seems less contrasty/sharp than I expected with casual testing, but today is gray, still late winter here. The bokeh seems nicer than I expected with these quick tests outside the house.
This statement kind of surprised me. From what little I've seen, the OM 50mm f/2 Macro seems to be one of the more Zeiss-ey OM lenses, especially when compared to other fast 50s from its time, with the possible exception of Zeiss. I've seen people compare the wide open sharpness of the OM 50mm f/2 Macro to the Contax G 45mm and ZM 50mm f/2, so kind of took it for granted that it was closer to those lenses than something like the OM 50/1.4.
I haven't run a real test against the Loxia 50, though I used it some today. I had intended to use this and then the Loxia 50, and then maybe the OM 50 1.4 today, carried all three lenses and the tripod (as well as other lenses). After a run with the OM 50/2 though I just settled into working with known lenses. The situation was good today, and I got into more working than testing. I made 580 exposures, and it was a Zeissy kind of mood. Evaluating the OM50/2 so far though, I'm quite pleased with the rendering. I wish I had used it more today.
No, it doesn't seem to be Zeissy, in terms of sharpness and contrast. I didn't expect it would match the Loxia 50, (though the OM 50 1.4 gets pretty close in terms of sharpness if not microcontrast). What I was hoping for is that it would be sharp enough and have nice rendering. We'll see... But it is no Loxia 50 for sharpness and brilliance.
arduluth wrote:
This statement kind of surprised me. From what little I've seen, the OM 50mm f/2 Macro seems to be one of the more Zeiss-ey OM lenses, especially when compared to other fast 50s from its time, with the possible exception of Zeiss. I've seen people compare the wide open sharpness of the OM 50mm f/2 Macro to the Contax G 45mm and ZM 50mm f/2, so kind of took it for granted that it was closer to those lenses than something like the OM 50/1.4.
Thoughts?
I've made the comparison between the Om50/2 and the Contax 45/2. The Contax has more contrast wide open, but my copies are equally sharp. Maybe my Contax is bad or my OM is unusually good?
The weakness of both lenses is the small number of aperture blades. That can make for wonky bokeh stopped down.
timballic wrote:
I do agree Mike, what were Olympus thinking of, designing "the best 50/2" and then only giving it six blades.
Number of blades is kind of a mystery to me. A lot of people have claimed that bokeh quality was never much of a consideration for manufacturers until the last 10-20 years. Yet, you certainly see a different number of blades as a differentiator for, say, Canon FD lenses (the cheapies = 5, standard = 6, higher-end and a some teles = 8).
At least the six blades of the Contax G 45 are rounded. You can still tell it's at f/2.8 in a lot of shots, but fewer than you do with the six straight blades of so many legacy lenses.
I really wouldn't mind if 7 blade apertures (like many Nikons) was the standard for more brands rather than 6. It's only one more! :P
MAubrey wrote:
I've made the comparison between the Om50/2 and the Contax 45/2. The Contax has more contrast wide open, but my copies are equally sharp. Maybe my Contax is bad or my OM is unusually good?
I don't know, that aligns with what I've heard and what I'd expect from those lenses. I'd expect the Contax to have an edge for contrast and flare resistance, being newer and T*.
I did a clocktower test with the 50/2 vs the Loxia 50 and the OM 50 1.4 (last run). Haven't gone all the way through it, but it comes out pretty well. Also today I made a whole lot of exposures with it. Still have to sort through it all, but so far I think the 50/2 is definitely a keeper, even at its cost.
I'm actually not finding the bokeh objectionable with the 50/2 at any aperture before 11, so far. Here's one at f2.8, and then at 5.6. Today, snowing in Vermont. The 5.6 is maybe a hair less smooth than one might like, but it's smoother than the Loxia 50 would be. I didn't try the OM 50 1.4 for this frame.
jlehet wrote:
I'm actually not finding the bokeh objectionable with the 50/2 at any aperture before 11, so far.
Yeah, 99% of the time, there's nothing wrong with it at all. But there's the very rare circumstance where you can get a very strange angular look to the background with lots of strange vertical lines. I'm not sure I can describe it. And...I've never kept any of the shops where I've encountered it because it's so atrocious.
Some notes from my clocktower test (a house across a lake focused in the center then each corner at each aperture up to 11). Loxia 50 vs OM 50/2 vs OM 50 1.4 (SN 1,xxx,xxx).
At infinity, across the whole field when focused at the center, the Loxia is the sharpest overall, at any matching aperture. This doesn't surprise me. It is also sharper at any matching aperture when focused on the corners.
Focused at the center, the edges are better on the 50/2 than on the 50/1.4 at any matching aperture (when it is also focused on the center), but when focused at the corners, the 50 1.4 is sharper than the 50/2 at any matching aperture. It seems the 50/2 has less field curvature, as one might expect from a macro lens, but it can't pull the same sharpness when focused on an edge at infinity.
The 50/2 has a somewhat wacky aperture calibration. It doesn't track the other two lenses. It gets more off as the lenses are stopped down. So the Loxia at f5.6 in this scene (center focus of house) is 1/200 sec, while the OM 50/2 is 1/500. Both with the same EV setting. The OM 50 1.4 is closer to the Loxia.
I read that thread, and I see you used the Pentax SMC 50 1.4 A. I have that very lens, the first vintage lens I bought, I think. Did you find any virtues with that lens, or did you send it away? I've got my Pentax 50 1.4 SMC in the lenses-to-sell pile, but it's a little hard since it does have such a great reputation. I always wonder if there's some use or situation where it might really shine. Kind of hard to let a lens go sometimes, but also who needs to own so many unused ones?
jlehet wrote:
I've got my Pentax 50 1.4 SMC in the lenses-to-sell pile, but it's a little hard since it does have such a great reputation. I always wonder if there's some use or situation where it might really shine. Kind of hard to let a lens go sometimes, but also who needs to own so many unused ones?
