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

[MAubrey]

After selling my Olympus 45mm f/1.8 and Contax Zeiss 80-200mm, I treated myself to this little guy. It's just incredibly sharp and the bokeh is nice 'n smooth.

A couple shots with it of my E-M5 & 75mm:

Wide open:

   ---            

Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 by MikeAubrey, on Flickr

Stopped down to f/5.6

   ---            

Olympus OM-D E-M5 by MikeAubrey, on Flickr

 

[MAubrey]

As a follow up, here are two 100% crops of the lens. It is crazy sharp.

Wide Open:

   ---            

Edge Resolution 50mm Macro - f2 by MikeAubrey, on Flickr

Stopped down to f/5.6:

   ---            

Edge Resolution 50mm Macro - f5.6 by MikeAubrey, on Flickr

 

[MAubrey]

Okay...I'm piling them on now.

I've never seen a lens this old and this fast be this good wide open. It's only lack is a larger number of aperture blades. Still despite that, the bokeh is still nice and smooth even stopped down.

   ---            

Ice by MikeAubrey, on Flickr

   ---            

Ice by MikeAubrey, on Flickr

   ---            

Mississippi by MikeAubrey, on Flickr

View attachment 57238
Untitled by MikeAubrey, on Flickr

   ---            

Coffee by MikeAubrey, on Flickr

 

[MAubrey]

   ---            

Beer by MikeAubrey, on Flickr

 

[WoodWorks]

Mmmmmmmm... Beer... The source of, and solution to all of life's problems. —Homer Simpson

 

[WNG]

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]

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.

 

[eno789]

For the 50mm f/3.5 Macro, an existing image thread is here: https://www.talkemount.com/threads/4669/

 

[MAubrey]

   ---            

Rwanda Karongi Gitesi City+ by MikeAubrey, on Flickr

 

[MAubrey]

   ---            

Anniversary Roses by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr

   ---            

Anniversary Roses by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr

 

[eno789]

   ---            

A Little 3D Pop by Brian Zhou, on Flickr

   ---            

Ladybug by Brian Zhou, on Flickr

 

[MAubrey]

Reminds me that I need to take mine out again...

 

[WT21]

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]

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]

...

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.

 

[MAubrey]

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.

That's why he said "equivalent."

 

[eno789]

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]

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]

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

 

[eno789]

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.