Olympus Zuiko 35mm f3.5 macro vs Olympus M.Zuiko ED 60mm f2.8

Hi,

I have found a lens I didn't know I had - the 35mm Olympus Macro for a non micro 4/3, with an adapter for micro 4/3. Really! It dates from a time when I really didn't understand about the effects of the sensor size and cropping on my Panasonic Lumix G3. Since then I have bought the 60mm f2.8. Then I moved to full frame for a few years, but I'm picking up the pieces with micro 4/3 again.

I am now aware that the 35mm will effectively be 70mm on my Lumix, not a lot different to the 60mm I also have.

I really want to get myself the Panasonic 20mm, so need to shed one of these lenses and am trying to work out which one. I have had a play with the 35mm today and remembered the focusing was a bore as it goes back and forwards slowly, whereas the 60mm is a dream.

My particular set up is that I photograph jewellery that I make, in natural window light, and like to get up close to take the pictures. I love shallow depth of field and bokeh to add mood to my shots. I'm certainly not a light tent, artificial lights, white background kind of person!

People told me when I started that I needed macro lenses for my work, but I don't believe this is the case.  What I need is close range focus and therefore long lenses/long working length are not my aim, I am not generally trying to chase bugs to capture shots. If the 35mm is going to be the better lens, I'll put up with it's focus speed as jewellery doesn't move!

So, if you are familiar with these lenses, I'd love to know what you think. I'd also love to know what your thoughts on using the Panasonic 20mm (or maybe 25mm) for close up work (jewellery, same setting) might be?

Your 60-mm macro would have the same field of view as a 120-mm lens on a so called 'full-frame' camera.