Micro Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 VS Olympus OM 50mm f/ Macro

[Howie1922]

Hi Everyone!

I currently shoot with the 50mm f/3.5 Macro on my OM-1, but I’m considering upgrading. The natural next step would be the Olympus 50mm f/2 Macro, since I’m already in the OM system. That said, I’ve been CLAing a lot of Nikkor lenses lately and their build quality has me tempted to switch over to Nikon.

My main question is: how does the Olympus 50mm f/2 Macro compare to the Nikon 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor? I’ve heard great things about both, but I’d love to hear from anyone who has used both and can share their impressions. The lens would mostly get used to scan all my film, shoot portraits, and probably take flower pictures.

Thanks for your time!

 

[dynachrome]

I see that no one else responded to this thread so I will make some comments. First let me say that I do not own the Zuiko 50/2 Macro and I have never used one. This is not for any bad reason. I found have the Zuiko 50/3.5 Macro and find it to be very good. I also have two 55/2.8 Vivitar Macro lenses in OM mount and just added a 55/3 Quantaray in OM mount. The Quantaray is the same as the Vivitar but with poetic license applied to the maximum aperture. These lenses go to 1:1 without the need for an extra extension tube. They are quite good. What about the 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor. I think I have three of these. They are sharp from 1:2 to infinity and with extra extension can go to 1:1 and beyond.
For your purposes, I don't know whether the 50/2 will be any kind of upgrade from the already excellent 50/3.5. I have the second version of the 80/4 Zuiko Macro, the second version of the Auto Tube and an Olympus Auto Bellows unit. The 80 is optimized for 1:1 and may be good for you. Very little successful Macro work is done at f/2. The faster lens can make focusing easier but you should be using a plain matte or grid type focusing screen anyway. There will be very little difference in performance in the macro range between the two lenses when you are stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8, which would be normal. What about using the 50/2 Macro as a standard lens outside of the macro range? I don't think you would see any improvement over the 50/1.8.

 

[skahde]

I only know the Nikkor 2.8/55 mm and I even used it as a portrait-lens. In this role I like it better than my other Nikkors around 50-55 mm as it gets just a nice little bit soft wide open and shows one of the more pleasant bokehs in a Nikkor from this era. On the flipside it could have a little more contrast and clarity and seems to trade of some of it for its nice resolution of fine detail. I own my copy since 1990 and had it relubed three times as it is still in regular use.
With respect to 2/50 Macros I would also consider the ZF-Planar judged by my experience with other ZF-lenses which should be in the same ballpark as the Zuiko with respect to price and availability.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The Zuiko 50/2 Macro is a much more complex mid 1980s design, the Nikkor an evolved version (from the late 1970s) of a more classic design.

The example of the 50/2 I have is highly competent, but realistically speaking its greatest strengths are proportionally higher performance at wider stops, and its general rendering habits. It is much more expensive than the 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, unless you get really lucky and find one for just a little bit more than the upper end of what the Micro Nikkors are sitting at currently. I might be more inclined towards the 60mm AF Micro Nikkor if looking for a scanning lens.

 

[skahde]

With respect to scanning I remember reading a thread on this forum or over on rangefinderforum, comparing quite a few lenses where the 2.8/55 AIs came out on top of the list of recommendations. I also like to use it for this application.