Showcase Olympus 50mm f/2 Zuiko OM Auto-Macro

MAubrey

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
1,030
Location
Bellingham, WA (displaced Canadian)
Real Name
Mike
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3

WNG

TalkEmount Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
4,338
Location
Arrid Zone-A, USA
Real Name
Will
Very nice! Those macros are sharp indeed, and no slouch as a landscape lens too.
I just acquired its vintage little brother, the OM Zuiko 50mm f3.5. I hear it's quite sharp too, and now can't wait for it to get here.
Thanks for sharing these shots!
 

MAubrey

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
1,030
Location
Bellingham, WA (displaced Canadian)
Real Name
Mike
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
Very nice! Those macros are sharp indeed, and no slouch as a landscape lens too.
I just acquired its vintage little brother, the OM Zuiko 50mm f3.5. I hear it's quite sharp too, and now can't wait for it to get here.
Thanks for sharing these shots!
Be sure to start an image thread for the 50mm f/3.5 when it arrives! I'm tempted by that one for its price even though I don't need it.
 
Last edited:

WT21

TalkEmount Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
655
I used the OM 50/2 on my m43 setup for a while. It's gorgeous wide open and is just sharp as a knife. It lacks some contrast, though. Beutiful for B&W. I sold it because it's big and heavy, and have mostly regretted that, as it proceeded to increase on the used market in price, and I've never bought it back.

I liked it on m43 because it made a fantastic 100mm/f4 1:1 macro equivalent. Nice to see it agrees with the Sony side, too. I'll bet it's buttah on an a7.
 

MAubrey

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
1,030
Location
Bellingham, WA (displaced Canadian)
Real Name
Mike
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #14
I used the OM 50/2 on my m43 setup for a while. It's gorgeous wide open and is just sharp as a knife. It lacks some contrast, though. Beutiful for B&W. I sold it because it's big and heavy, and have mostly regretted that, as it proceeded to increase on the used market in price, and I've never bought it back.
It's still priced well when it appears on Ebay in auctions rather than buy-it-now--the latter are invariably overpriced. In auctions it goes for ~$250. I used to have nearly a dozen 50's. I've only kept three: this one, the Contax G 45mm, and the Sony FE 55mm and each has its own purpose. I don't need anything else.
 

eno789

TalkEmount Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 1, 2012
Messages
779
Location
NoCal, USA
Real Name
Brian
...

I liked it on m43 because it made a fantastic 100mm/f4 1:1 macro equivalent. Nice to see it agrees with the Sony side, too. I'll bet it's buttah on an a7.
I actually like the 50mm field view of this lens a lot, makes it suitable for not just macro, but a more flexible trail lens. Part of the reason I buy it. The other 50mm f/2 lens is Zeiss which costs much more.

On m43, it's 100mm equivalent in terms of field view, still f/2 in terms of exposure, f/4 equivalent in terms of DoF. Even though it fills the frame more on m43, it's still 1:2 magnification. Still the same minimum focal distance too.
 

eno789

TalkEmount Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 1, 2012
Messages
779
Location
NoCal, USA
Real Name
Brian
That's why he said "equivalent."
When talking about macro magnification (image size on sensor : real life size), it remains constant no matter what crop sensor you're using. It's a common mistake to think there's a macro magnification "equivalent", there is not.
 

MAubrey

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
1,030
Location
Bellingham, WA (displaced Canadian)
Real Name
Mike
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #18
When talking about macro magnification (image size on sensor : real life size), it remains constant no matter what crop sensor you're using. It's a common mistake to think there's a macro magnification "equivalent", there is not.
That's true. But it's not the whole story.

When talking about equivalence, it's a common mistake to not realize that the topic is about an equivalent photograph (with respect to noise, magnification, DOF, etc.) And in this case, 1:2 on FF produces an equivalent photograph to 1:1 on μ43. An equivalent photograph isn't predicated on things that remain constant, like exposure's relationship to f-number or magnification relationship to sensor size.

If I take a photograph of a flower with my 5x7 view camera and then want to create an equivalent image on my A7rII, I don't want the magnification to remain constant. I want to the magnification to be chosen separately based on equivalent space filling the frame.

So again: That's why he said "equivalent."
 

WT21

TalkEmount Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
655
Agreed.

In EITHER case (whether shooting on 135 or 43 sensor), both will be out to reference sizes (whether web or print), so the effective magnification is different from the different formats.

Any rate, I like the equivalence because that's what I (and many, though not all nor not even close to all) folks can hearken back to full frame (whether film or digital). But I understand the technical differences.

Now, let's talk photons and aperture :D
 

eno789

TalkEmount Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 1, 2012
Messages
779
Location
NoCal, USA
Real Name
Brian
That's true. But it's not the whole story.

When talking about equivalence, it's a common mistake to not realize that the topic is about an equivalent photograph (with respect to noise, magnification, DOF, etc.) And in this case, 1:2 on FF produces an equivalent photograph to 1:1 on μ43. An equivalent photograph isn't predicated on things that remain constant, like exposure's relationship to f-number or magnification relationship to sensor size.

If I take a photograph of a flower with my 5x7 view camera and then want to create an equivalent image on my A7rII, I don't want the magnification to remain constant. I want to the magnification to be chosen separately based on equivalent space filling the frame.

So again: That's why he said "equivalent."
The definition of "magnification ratio" is the ratio between the size of the image projected on sensor/film, and the real size. It's an optical attribute of the lens. And should remain constant no matter what sensor is used. Think about it this way, will the max magnification ratio change if you move a magnifying glass around? Another example, take a specific macro lens, at max magnification, take a picture of a grain of rice, will the size of projected image size change because sensor size changes?

So, talking about equivalence of "max magnification ratio" is wrong in the first place. There is no equivalence, it always remain constant.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom