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

gary payne wrote:

The primary trouble with the Pana and Oly 42.5/45mm primes is that neither are suited for macro although otherwise they are well respected. This is also true of the new super fast pro editions.

This is a good point that I had forgotten, and the main reason I wasn't thrilled with the 45/1.8 I borrowed for a few days - I was always bumping against the MFD, something which rarely happens with my 12-40.

So we do at least get a dual purpose lens with the 4/3 Oly 50mm and if you're traveling light it can be combined with the Oly 12mm f2, the Pana 20mm f1.7 to make a great set of ranges in a small bag.

True, although I suspect the 60/2.8 could also fill the need for some.

The forum pros on this particular thread don't generally seem to feel the 50mm is any better than the similar-range competition. The formal reviews suggest otherwise, especially in resolution where its sharpness apparently exceeds measurement capability, although for me there is the hard to define overall rendering that keeps it in my bag of carry-on.

I need to use it more, as this discussion had me sifting through my rather thin sampling of shots to find examples of this. Here are two which I think show a bit of it. The first one needs more DOF, but I still like it.

It's such a good value too if you have an EM1 body to focus it.

Yes, it is a very different beast on an E-M1.

gp