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

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.

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).

aliasfox wrote:

- 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.

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).

I have the 50mm f2, and the AF just isn't good enough after getting used to the 45mm. I only use mine for macro work these days. As much as I have loved mine, skip it. You won't use it for portraits due to the hunting af. When you want longer than 45mm get the 60mm.

The 50mm is a very good lens, but it is no better for portraits in my opinion than the 45mm f/1.8 (the 45mm focuses much faster too). I own both lenses, and prefer the 45mm (I already owned the 50mm before buying the 45mm, and plan to keep it).

If I were you, I would continue to use the 45mm for portrait work, and get the Oly 30mm f/3.5 for close up/macro shooting. It is razor sharp, and will allow in-camera focus stacking with your E-M1. In addition, if you catch one on sale, it is very inexpensive for the optical quality (I bought a brand new one recently for $99).

daddyo wrote:

The 50mm is a very good lens, but it is no better for portraits in my opinion than the 45mm f/1.8 (the 45mm focuses much faster too). I own both lenses, and prefer the 45mm (I already owned the 50mm before buying the 45mm, and plan to keep it).

If I were you, I would continue to use the 45mm for portrait work, and get the Oly 30mm f/3.5 for close up/macro shooting. It is razor sharp, and will allow in-camera focus stacking with your E-M1. In addition, if you catch one on sale, it is very inexpensive for the optical quality (I bought a brand new one recently for $99).

I admit, I was sorely tempted by the $149 (new!) deal for the Oly 30mm macro over the holidays. The only thing holding me back was that if I was going to get a short macro, it would primarily be for the fiancee on the IBIS-less GM5, so the Panny 30mm macro is a better choice - too bad it's 2x the price of the Olympus.

Are you saying that the difference in sharpness/rendering between the 45/1.8 and 50/2 isn't really visible in real-world scenarios? I think the 45mm renders OOF areas quite well, and I like the colors, as well, but have always wondered how much better the 50/2 could be (for not too much money).

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Focus will be slow regardless of camera model, so I'll suggest the 50 for leisurely pursuits only, including any formal macro work you may have since MF is probable for that. Impeccable lens optically, to be sure and rather large once you add the adapter, far larger than the 45.

Cheers,

Rick

I'm ok with the size of the lens - this would go in the same case that carries the E-M1 (with grip), 14-54, and 50-200, so it would actually be the smallest lens of the bunch.

When you say that it focuses slowly, would you be able to compare it against something? I know it won't be as fast as the 45/1.8, but how's the focus compare to the 50-200 SWD, whose biggest fault is re-acquiring focus when you drift off target.

I use mine very little, and always in MF mode on my EM5s, but have tried it on an EM1ii, and found the AF quite usable.

The 12-40 just does so well with closeups that I  am rarely inclined to switch to the 50, even though the bokeh is nicer. The 50 also suffers from more flare and CA when shooting against backlit scenes.

If I were in your shoes I would go for the 60 macro, with more useable AF on all bodies, and also a bit more reach for a long portrait lens. I debated the 60 vs 30 before Christmas and ended up getting the 30 macro for $99. I figured at the price I can sell it if I don't like it and not take a loss. I might use it for slide/negative copying since my 50 doesn't quite work with the copier I use.

That's a hard one.  The Zuiko 50 f2 macro is a superb lens - very sharp.  I think it is better than the m43 60 macro - except for focus speed, and size.  I like mine a lot, and am not to worried about focus speed as macro works best with manual focus IMO.  BUT, for portraits, it might be a problem.  I also have the 45 f1.8 and the Sigma f2.8.  Both of them are very sharp - just excellent lenses.  I will keep my Zuiko 50 f2 macro thought.  it may be the sharpest of the bunch, although the other two will give it a run for the money.  Who says you can only have one or them?

This is Sahara taken with the Zuiko 50mm f2 Macro on one of our walks.

Peace.

John

Yes.  I think it does.  Thanks.  As far as the Sigma reference, I meant the Sigma 60mm f2.8 for m43.

Peace.

John

It's the perfect lens to relieve GAS - the reference lens for FT sensor testing.  It's sharp and renders well.  MF is very tactile and it works well as a macro.

A used copy is good value.  I'm more than happy with AF on my EM1.1.  If AF on the Panny 20/1.7 is too slow for you then the 50mm is not for you.  It doesn't have a focus limiter, so initial acquisition can be slow unless you prefocus.

If you don't like it, then you won't lose much reselling it.  It seems like the perfect complement to the strengths of the 12-40 Pro.

Andrew

Skeeterbytes wrote:

aliasfox wrote:

When you say that it focuses slowly, would you be able to compare it against something? I know it won't be as fast as the 45/1.8, but how's the focus compare to the 50-200 SWD, whose biggest fault is re-acquiring focus when you drift off target.

Much slower focusing than any SWD lens and prone to excursions out to infinity and then back which, because it's a macro takes awhile. It and the Zuiko 35/3.5 macro are perhaps the slowest of 4/3 lenses.

On anything but the E-M1s, it makes the Pany 20/1.7 seem like lightning. On the E-M1s, it is about the same as the 20/1.7, or maybe still a bit slower. Basically a MF lens unless you have an E-M1 or E-M1ii. And in MF mode, the ring needs to be spun quite a lot to rack from near to far. It also doesn't retract to infinity on its own, which can be annoying if you leave it in MF mode. I just checked my LR catalog, and I've only taken about 400 images with it in a year, compared with > 5k each from my 12-40 and 7-14.

The 50mm f2 is a magic lens on an EM1.  It's an admittedly subjective quality so I use the term "rendering" to cover up my inability to articulate what I find in the images.  I bought it after reading the stellar reviews that suggested it was a legendary lens.  It has easily met my expectations, and not merely in its breathtaking sharpness.

I had planned to use it mostly for macro work but it keeps surprising me in portraits so I'm using it about as often as I use my Oly 75mm f1.8.  I would not buy it for the older Oly bodies or any Pana bodies because of focusing problems but it's a peach on my EM1.

I'll never part with it.  It allows M4/3 users to probe the outer boundaries of our format's  potential.  gp

Handheld and cropped.  Shot raw and processed in LR.

Like Daddyo  I own both lenses and his advice is spot on.  I also already owned the 50 from my 4:3 days and it's an excellent piece of glass but I wouldn't buy it for m4:3.  I really think the 45 is all you need for portraits.  If I was going to get a macro lens for m4:3 I'd get the 60, but if that's not in your budget then the 30 is supposed to be pretty good from what I've read.  As other's have mentioned the 50 is also slow focusing and of course requires an adaptor.