Olympus 4/3 mount 50 f/2 - worth it?

aliasfox wrote:

Hi everybody. I've got a bit of GAS, and right now the first thing that comes to mind to relieve it is to get a copy of the 50mm f/2 macro. By reputation, it is one of the sharpest lenses in the system - in DPReview's studio scene, it is quite apparent, especially in the corners, whether the 50/2 was used or the 45/1.8.

Now, I like sharpness. I've never been disappointed by the output from my 45/1.8, but I'm usually wowed by my 75/1.8. I'm often disappointed in my 25/1.4 wide open, but have no complaints at f/2 (which is where I usually shoot at unless I'm light starved). By reputation, the 50/2 is legendary, and at least as good as the 75mm, and it would be nice to have a shorter lens that could still offer that pop.

Of course, the question becomes "do I need it?" I have the 45/1.8 to cover portraits - and unless I'm peeping, I'm not sure how much of a difference would be noticeable. I have the 12-40/2.8 that can sub-in as a macro-ish lens, and so far it's been fine for flowers, food, and the occasional bug - if I need to get closer, I've ended up cropping a bit in post. Lastly, the 50/2 would be great on my E-M1 kit, and would help round out my 4/3" lens collection (50-200 SWD, 14-54 II right now). But it wouldn't work so well on my E-M5ii, E-PM2, nor my fiancee's GM5. To this end, should I get the 60/2.8 instead? Is the image quality on the 60mm as good as the 50mm?

So here are my opinions/options:

- Get it. Sure, it's GAS, but I won't regret the image quality.

- Get it, but understand that eventually I'll need another macro lens to satisfy other uses (currently considering the Panny 30/2.8 for its OIS)

- Save my money. The 50/2 is great, but the 45/1.8 is 95% the portrait lens, and the 12-40 is satisfactory for when I want close up work.

- Given that I have four active m4/3 bodies, I should spend the extra $100 and go for a used 60/2.8 instead, despite the fact that the IQ doesn't have the same reputation as the 50.

iirc- Robin Wong (whom I respect for his style and his proof of work) stated that the 60/2.8 he was reviewing was a better lens then his own 50/2. I'm positive he was extremely fond of his 50/2 too so it might be worth your time to track down that review.

I have both lenses but i can be of no service to you because i can't judge stuff like that anyways.

I bought the 60/2.8 to better suit (AF-wise) my m4/3 bodies.

Regardless of the options, I'll likely still grab a Panasonic 30/2.8 so the GM5 isn't left out in the close-up arena (fiancee likes shooting flowers, plant details, etc where working distance isn't too big a deal).