Which Oly Macro: 50mm or 60mm?

wpbarr wrote:

I would appreciate opinions and advice regarding which lens to choose. Weather-sealing is important, so I think I'm mostly limited to the 4/3 50mm f2.0 and m4/3 60mm f2.8 lenses. The lens will be mounted on an E-M1. Here is how I plan to use the lens:

• organic still life (macro) - documentary & abstracts
• inorganic still life (macro) - abstracts
• I focus macro shots by rail at maximum distance
• medium length telephoto for shallow DoF
• primarily monopod/tripod, not hand-held
• images will primarily be displayed electronically
• only RAW mode will be used for macro shots
• images will be cropped aggressively

Weight and bokeh quality are not important. I don't know if 1:1 is that important, so I would enjoy learning experiences and perspectives about magnification.

Thanks in advance.

Bill

Both lenses are quite good, but good old 50 is better for any purpose, except AF. amd, you can get EX-25 extension tube. 50mm with the extension tube is a powerful combo (giving AF speed is not priority).

I own both. When I want serious macro shots, I do use 50 (or combo depending on the magnification needed).

When I was shooting exclusively with the SLRs, I had both 35 and 50 Macros. I sold the 50 when I sold the E-5. Now I have the 35 Macro and Macro-Elmarit 45, both of which are brilliant if not weather sealed.

I've debated picking up another ZD 50 or the M.Z 60, but for the moment when I want something longer than 45mm, I use my ancient Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 Pre-AI or a Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 AI-S adapted to the E-M1. Both do an astonishingly good job.

I've never needed the weather sealing, but if you're shooting bugs in damp country it's a nice added feature.

I do a lot of macro work, so I have tried the 50mm, 60mm and the PL 45mm. My particular feeling about these lenses may be a little different than some others, but I ended up with the PL 45mm, which I think has beautiful IQ.

When I tried the 50mm on the EM1, I was surprised at how slow and noisy the AF was, and I just did not see much of a difference between it and either the 60mm or my old adapted Nikon 55mm f3.5 macro (which is a heck of a good lens). In addition, since the AF is so slow and so noisy, you have to use manual focus on the lens, which would be fine, except since it is focus-by-wire, it does not have that lovely snappy precision of a fully manual lens (like my Nikon). Needless to say, it did not stay.

The 60mm is a nice lens, but when I got it, after comparing it with the adapted legacy Nikon, I simply could not see any IQ difference; if anything I like the Nikon output better. I even tried two copies of it, just in case I had a bad one, and the results were the same.

This year I ended up springing for the PL 45mm f2.8 macro, and was actually delighted with it. It has beautiful IQ, and it's the first macro lens I've use on M43 that trumps the adapted Nikon in image quality. It's not weather sealed though.

So, given all of this, what I would recommend (based on my own experiences and what you want), is the Oly 60mm. IF you can live without weather sealing, I would strongly consider the PL45mm, and IF you plan to use MF a fair bit of the time (and can live without AF or weather sealing), I would look into one of the Nikon macros.

-J

Michael M Fliegel wrote:

Don't forget the 35 3.5 macro lens. It is going to be way cheaper than both if you are looking for a dedicated macro lens that can still shoot portraits.

True, and it is a 1:1, but I have never actually tried that one, so I can't give any opinion on its performance

-J

jalywol wrote:

Michael M Fliegel wrote:

Don't forget the 35 3.5 macro lens. It is going to be way cheaper than both if you are looking for a dedicated macro lens that can still shoot portraits.

True, and it is a 1:1, but I have never actually tried that one, so I can't give any opinion on its performance

-J

It's a terrific performer and very inexpensive. It's probably my most used FourThirds SLR lens.

I too do a load of macro and with such field application, most of the time its the environment demand that's really more a dictating factor than the actual usage demand .. You did say organic subject but that can be flora and well plants do not object to us getting up close ( usually at least ) but if your organic subject involve something like say a venomous snake, then for your own sake ( and that of the subject ) it might be better to seek out options beyond just the 50 or 60mm.

Personally with your said goal I see no real difference with the 50 and 60mm bar the fact that the 50mm only goes to half life size while the 60mm goto life size and that might or might not be the factor for you. Otherwise I think they are both good. But considering I would instead like to go for a good old Nikon 200mm /4.0 Micro-Nikkor ( the current version would do fine ) or similar from Tamron, Sigma or Canon's .. the longer focal length in this case is not for anything specific to imaging. its for the capturing the longer working distance allowed allow much more liberty in lightning and composition as well as allowing that safe margin ( for you and your subject ). One other way we used to do it in film days and still valid is to use a fine quality Tele ( like 300mm or more ) with extension tube. Do remember no matter what lens, at these macro setting ( close to or even exceed life size repro ) the Bellow Factors kicks in , so your f/2.8 aperture really is turning in light intensity more like f/5.6 or even lesss ( You can google for the complex math required for that )

Which goes back to the lens, and why I am saying a real Quality ( optically ) mid range speed ( fast would be nice but not absolutely needed ) Tele Macro would be my no.1 desirable lens right now for M4/3 ; preferably with a tripod bush that allowed the lens to be tripod locked to its nodal point. Something like a 180 or 200mm Macro that can do 1:1 and speed like f/3.4 or 4.0 .. that can easily double as the mid range " general " purpose Tele