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

I sold off my 50mm f/2.0 Macro lens because I don't shoot very many macro photos. My 45mm f/1.8 was a much better match for my EM5, EM1 and GM1. It provided a relatively fast focusing portrait prime for me, making the 50mm f/2.0 fairly useless.

Mind you, it is an outstanding macro lens, but since I didn't take very many macros I got rid of it. And if I ever feel the need for a macro lens there are four outstanding ones available with native M4/3 mounts.

You still might want to buy that lens for yourself, especially if you find one cheap enough. For $100 or $150, it might be hard to pass up. And you really don't need fast AF or OIS for most macro shooting.

OzRay wrote:

I owned the 50mm macro when it first came out and later sold it as I found it to be very slow to use. However, late last year I picked up a second hand one and was very surprised that it focussed much faster on my E-M1 MkI and MkII than I remember it ever doing on my 4/3 cameras. That's with and without the 1.4x extender. While the focus of the 45mm will be faster than the 50mm, how much faster will depend on camera. Anything without PDAF will be glacial and frustrating.

I bought the 50mm purely for macro/close-up work, as I was considering getting the 60mm macro. But when the 50mm, in mint condition, came up at less than half the price of a 60mm (with the hood etc), I thought why not. No regrets on my part.

But the other thing to consider with the 50mm is that it has an image characteristics that all SHG lenses have and which none of the m4/3 has yet been able to emulate. The m4/3 lenses tend to focus on absolute sharpness, but the SHG lenses focus on broader image characteristics. I think Olympus is trying to do similar now with the new f1.2 lenses as they have admitted that they have concentrated too much in image sharpness.

You touched on a few considerations here. I would use this lens with the E-M1, and considering I have the EC-14, I could get a 70/2.8 lens with 1:2 macro capability, which might be cool.

I'm intrigued by the 'SHG' image characteristics. I love how the 14-54 and 50-200 render (with the exception of slightly busy bokeh in some situations), and figured the 50/2 would be better in every way, with better (and shallower) bokeh, to boot.

But based on what everyone's been calling out, it seems like the 60/2.8 or one of the 30mm options would be better options - despite the fact that they won't have images that are quite as sharp or quite as 'magical' as high end Oly 4/3 glass.

Marty4650 wrote:

I sold off my 50mm f/2.0 Macro lens because I don't shoot very many macro photos. My 45mm f/1.8 was a much better match for my EM5, EM1 and GM1. It provided a relatively fast focusing portrait prime for me, making the 50mm f/2.0 fairly useless.

Mind you, it is an outstanding macro lens, but since I didn't take very many macros I got rid of it. And if I ever feel the need for a macro lens there are four outstanding ones available with native M4/3 mounts.

You still might want to buy that lens for yourself, especially if you find one cheap enough. For $100 or $150, it might be hard to pass up. And you really don't need fast AF or OIS for most macro shooting.

And that's what I was thinking. A well known purveyor of pre-owned equipment has a few copies, and with the sale they had going on through yesterday, a pristine copy could have been had for $183. In comparison, their pristine copy of the 60/2.8 would have come to $266. With only $83 of daylight between them, it wasn't a cost issue, as much as whether or not the unique characteristics of the older lens are worth it.

From what it sounds like so far, it may be a lens worth keeping (or picking up for very cheap), but for most practical purposes, I should stick with my 45/1.8, 12-40, or HG glass when I want a different look.

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.

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.

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.

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

gp

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

I have been using Oly stuff since the old E-10 days.  Over time I acquired some different lenses.  From my old 4/3 SWD glass I still have the 50-200mm f2.8-3.5, 12-60mm f2.8-4, and the 50mm f2

With the E1MarkII, it has brought new life back into these with the PDAF and I have my fast AF back again.  I also have some of the new micro 4/3 glass, 12-40mm f2.8, 40-150mm f2.8, 25mm f1.2.  I might part with the old 12-60mm and 50-200mm but not the 50mm f2.

I enjoy portraits with the kidos and of all these lenses, I gravitate back to my old 50mm f2 over and over and it is on E1MarkII much of the time.  I tried the new 40-150mm f2.8 pro and the bokeh is too nervous.  I have the 75mm f1.8 on order and looking forward to it.

My thoughts on the 50mm f2, with the E1MarkII, it is still my go to for head and shoulders.  If I am in a tight area or need width for group shots, I love the 25mm f1.2, but go back to 50mm f2 on one or two subjects to keep facial facial features less pronounce (again looking forward to trying really tight shots on the 75mm f1.8).

So if you have the 45mm f1.8, that's a tough call.  I don't have the Oly 45mm f1.8 and don't have any interest while owning the 50mm f2 and PDAF E1MarkII.  The only way I might consider shelving my 50mm f2 is with the 45mm f1.2 but I haven't been able to justify the cost for what I would gain.. yet.. lol.  But the f1.2 primes are amazing.

Last weekend.. Playing chess with my son;

E1MarkII, 50mm f2, shot at 1/250ms, f4.5

Diacyclops81 wrote:

As others have noted the af hunting is an issue, and for macro work mf is often preferred so the comparison turned to legacy macros, like Nikkors, Canon FDs or similar. A quick comparison revealed no advantage in image quality over some of the best legacy lenses for my purposes. A very nice lens, but I didn’t need it. However, a mint 35mm f3.5 macro Oly popped up for a very low price, and I have been very happy with it. Plastic yes, af hunting yes but maybe less than the 50, weather sealed no, but really good not only for a wider angle macro but also general use when a faster lens is not needed. I think you will discover no need for the 50 for portraits once you snag the 75.

Well, that's the thing: I already have the 45/1.8 and 75/1.8, but I also have an E-M1 with MMF3 and the EC-14. I'm cool with leisurely AF (can fall back on the 45/1.8 if needed for portraiture), but still wondering if <$200 for an adapted f/2 macro/portrait is worth it, or just go for the (possibly less sharp) 60mm.

I think part of it is that I think I want the 50mm, but have never especially desired the 60mm for some reason.

Well...my Oly 75mm is very nearly as sharp as my Oly 50mm, and I love its compact size and accurate fast focus.  The 75mm bouquet is a bit busier IMO than the 50mm despite the greater magnification.  And it's not useful for macro.  Still, if I didn't have the 50mm the 75mm would be my go - to lens for portraits.  The 40s are a bit short for good stealth-fill-the-frame shots which I like.

In this 75mm shot below...I wish I had taken it wide open instead of f2 because the background is just a little bit busy.  My guess is that the same shot with the Oly 50mm wide open at f2 would have fuzzed that background significantly more.

Nevertheless, I won't part with my 75mm either.

I use mine on my GM5 due to Pany's superior implementation of MF. Leisurely is the key here. OTOH, the color, contrast and sharpness make it an outstanding photographic tool.

I also have the 45 and it's better in almost every respect. But when I want to make myself s l o w  d o w n, it's a lot of fun.

I had one from a 4/3 kit I had acquired at a fantastic price a while back.   And while it is a spectacularly sharp lens, I could  never find a niche where I would use it within Micro 4/3.  So I sold it.

For Macros, I prefer legacy manual focus (and I use both an older 50mm f3.5 Minolta Rokkor MD, and a Tamron SP 90mm f2.5).  These lenses are just as sharp as the Oly.

For portraiture, I prefer a Sigma 60mm f2.8 - and it too is just as sharp as the Oly 50mm.  It is also FAR faster for AF - and it can also double as a very good macro lens with the addition of a good front achromat screw-on.

Paul Auclair wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

I had one from a 4/3 kit I had acquired at a fantastic price a while back. And while it is a spectacularly sharp lens, I could never find a niche where I would use it within Micro 4/3. So I sold it.

For Macros, I prefer legacy manual focus (and I use both an older 50mm f3.5 Minolta Rokkor MD, and a Tamron SP 90mm f2.5). These lenses are just as sharp as the Oly.

Along with the dzuiko 2.8/60 and dzuiko 50/2 I have a few legacy macros including a Vivitar(Tokina) S1 90/2.5.

ill not argue about which is sharper but I just used the bokina and the oem macros recently and contrast and color of the bokina was very noticeably lacking compared to the native glass.

For portraiture, I prefer a Sigma 60mm f2.8 - and it too is just as sharp as the Oly 50mm. It is also FAR faster for AF - and it can also double as a very good macro lens with the addition of a good front achromat screw-on.

That's not been my general experience with the Tamron, which I grant, is a very similar (perhaps even identical) lens to the Bokina (which I've used in the past with film gear). But what I will say is that those lenses are susceptible to flaring, which certainly can serve to lower the contrast and wash out the color - and one needs to be careful to avoid flare sources when using them. In any case, because of the crop factor, the one I use more often with m4/3 is the Minolta MD 50mm f3.5 Macro, which has the optics far recessed into the barrel, which makes it much less susceptible to flare than the Tamron or Bokina, and it's not got that issue.