Seeking opinion on Olympus OM 50mm versions

[stam6882]

I have been using my Olympus OM-1n with 50mm f1.8 for a while. It takes good photos with solid performance so far. I am thinking getting another 50mm either the f1.4, f1.2 or the f2.0 macro. I am not sure if adding the f1.4 makes sense as I already have the f1.8. I do like a bit more bokeh in low light however. The 50mm f2.0 macro seems to be highly sought after and is a solid performer across all apertures. For the OM experts, would you mind to shed some light? Thanks.

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

Another 50mm? Really?

I'm a 40-year OM shooter, but sorry... I never use 50mm lenses. I have a 50/1.8 I haven't mounted in decades. I'm just not a fan of the "normal lens" 50mm angle of view. I never use my Nikkor 50/1.4 on my F2 or Nikkormat either.

The Zuiko lenses that get the most use on my OM-2n are the 35/2 - my preferred "normal" lens - and the awesome 100/2.8. I sometimes go wider with the 24/2.8. All great lenses that, IMHO, produce more interesting images than a 50mm.

You know, if they weren't stratospherically priced these days, I'd be interested in the tiny Zuiko 40/2. That looks like a very cool normal lens!

Olympus Zuiko 40mm F/2 Lens Review - Maitani's Smallest Zuiko

Olympus Zuiko 40mm F/2 fast prime lens review - sample shots, bokeh test, portraits, history, and the lasting legacy of this classic Zuiko.

casualphotophile.com

 

[Steve Goldstein]

Here are some thoughts from an "outsider" (not an Olympus user)...

If you don't do lots of low-light photography I'd suspect you'd be hard-pressed to see any real difference between the f/1.8, f/1.4, and f/1.2 lenses. The f/2 macro, on the other hand, gives you new photographic possibilities because of its close-up capability. So if you're really set on another 50mm, get the macro. Otherwise follow FriedLouis' advice and get a different focal length; the change in perspective will do more for you photographically than another 1/2 stop of light transmission.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

A lot of good info on all these 50mm lenses here:

Olympus Zuiko Standard Lenses at 50mm - Part II

 

[M-88]

Had several MC and SC 50/1.8 Zuikos. Latest 50/1.8 had plastic aperture ring which felt like a downgrade to me. Couldn't notice any difference between SC and MC 1.8s performance-wise so I settled for MC version with metal focusing ring.

Also had several 50/1.4 Zuikos, two of them with serial above 1000000. Single coated 50/1.4s performed noticeably weaker compared to multi-coated 1.4s. But a multicoated lens with 700000+ serial was already retty good.

Finally, I had 50/3.5 macro too. It delivered the quality you would expect from a macro. Plus it was excellent at infinity too. No worse than 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 at f/4 and smaller. But I couldn't omit those entirely because of the long focus throw of 50/3.5.

In the end, 50/1.8 was the last 50 mm Zuiko I kept, until I went for a 35mm prime. Why not 50/1.4? Because 50/1.8 balances better on dinky OM cameras. Also because the difference between performances of 1.4 and 1.8 was negligible for my puny 8x10 prints and scans made with non-drum lab scanner. Another sentiment you will often hear is that 1.4 gives a brighter viewfinder. However, with big and bright viewfinders of OM cameras, I couldn't notice a drastic difference.

Other users will give more comprehensive opinion, my OM hobby only lasted for 5 years or so.

 

[Ben 4]

As an OM user since 1976, I love my sc 50 1.8. Though it's pretty soft wide open, the out-of-focus areas are wonderful. I haven't tried the other 50s.
You may find this site (Gary Reese's lens tests) useful—it was one of the go-to Zuiko lens sites for many years. But one of the lessons is that sample variation and camera vibration will swamp other differences.

 

[grain elevator]

Here are some thoughts from an "outsider" (not an Olympus user)...

If you don't do lots of low-light photography I'd suspect you'd be hard-pressed to see any real difference between the f/1.8, f/1.4, and f/1.2 lenses. The f/2 macro, on the other hand, gives you new photographic possibilities because of its close-up capability. So if you're really set on another 50mm, get the macro. Otherwise follow FriedLouis' advice and get a different focal length; the change in perspective will do more for you photographically than another 1/2 stop of light transmission.

+1. Unless you're absolutely dedicated to 50mm. But even then, 1. you dont seem to really need specific capabilities of the other 50s or the choice would be clear and 2. something drastically different might be interesting, as a learning opportunity if nothing else. I'd look for a 28 or 24 or even wider as the second lens. 100mm is quite versatile as well, but I feel the way one composes with one are more similar to the 50.

 

[Dali]

I don't know people insist on posting knowing that they have no knowledge to share... Back to the topic: Zuiko 1.8/50 is a solid performer, so unless you have specific needs (macro or low light photography), I would stick to it. I know, it might not be the expected answer, but this is my Oly experience speaking.

 

[MattKing]

I've had and used several different 50mm OM lenses in the ~48 years I've been using OM equipment. I think I still have four - two 50mm f/1.8, a 50mm f/1.4 and a 50mm f/3.5 macro.
They are now relegated to special purpose for me, because the 35mm f/2 lens is essentially my "standard" lens, particularly in combination with the 85mm f/2.
The performance of the 50mm lenses is remarkably consistent across the range. If you have a 50mm you like, any "improvements" you might see from switching will be marginal, unless you need something like macro capacity, or an extra 1/2 stop of speed.
One advantage of the OM system is that the viewing systems give you a wonderfully bright and contrasty and easy to focus view even with something as relatively slow as the 50mm f/3.5 macro.

 

[Chuck1]

I got a 1.2 for a very good price, the blades are slow so I use it wide open, and it has the yellow tinge so it's just for black and white, I don't hate it.
The macro 2.0 seems nice

 

[stam6882]

Given the recommendations above I am leaning towards the 50mm f3.5 macro. It’s very reasonably priced, compact and high quality. The next one to look at will be 28mm f2.8.

 

[dynachrome]

I agree that the 50/3.5 would be a good next lens. I have two of them and they are very good. I'm sure the 50/2 Macro is also good but macro work at f/2 does not seem practical to me.

 

[stam6882]

I agree that the 50/3.5 would be a good next lens. I have two of them and they are very good. I'm sure the 50/2 Macro is also good but macro work at f/2 does not seem practical to me.

Agree; some are using 50mm f2.0 for portrait work and general photography hence the larger aperture. However f2.0 is several times more expensive than f3.5.

 

[bedrof]

I've got the same initial setup as an OP, with OM-1n+50/1.8 and I'm completely happy with that, but not long ago a friend of mine gave me his 35/2.8 shift for a couple of rolls and that was kinda eye opening experience.

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

Keep an eye on these guys. Both a 50/3.5 Macro and a 28/2.8 have shown up recently. And their "Good" rating is typically VERY good: I've bought a couple of Good non-AI Nikkors from them that are lovely, including a 200/4 tele for $39 that looks and feels like it was manufactured yesterday.

Used Manual Focus Lenses SLR Lenses for Sale | UsedPhotoPro

Shop our huge selection of Used Manual Focus Lenses and SLR Lenses at great prices! We offer Free Shipping on qualified orders on popular brands Canon, Nikon, and more. Buy used Wide angle, Standard lenses, or SLR lenses from UsedPhotoPro today.

usedphotopro.com

BTW, I definitely recommend the 28/2.8 Zuiko as a favorite. I used one for yearrs and loved it. I've got a 24/2.8 now... but its images are sometimes too wide and distorted, whereas the 28mm's view doesn't always scream WIDE ANGLE LENS at you.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The next one to look at will be 28mm f2.8.

After that, indulge yourself and get the 85mm f/2. Fantastic lens — the moniker "portrait lens" doesn't do justice to its versatility. With the OM, the combination of 35mm (sometimes 28mm) + 50mm + 85mm is my usual walking-around trio where ever I go.

 

[baachitraka]

50mm f/1.8 is a sleeper and you don't need an another 50mm.

I see 85mm or any Teles as special lenses that you don't use it very often.

Rather a 28mm f/3.5 is handy for streets.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I see 85mm or any Teles as special lenses that you don't use it very often.

Rather a 28mm f/3.5 is handy for streets.

Saul Leiter shot his street photography with either the 90mm or the 150mm.

No lens is handier than another. It's a question of what you see and how you want to show it.

As I said, I generally carry at least the 35mm, 50mm and 85mm, and all three get equal use.

 

[btaylor]

Nothing sexy about that 50mm f1.8, but it does get the job done. Got a f1.4 and a f3.5 macro some time ago- didn’t bother to use the 1.4 actually (came with another camera body), but the f3.5 macro is sharp and very fun to have the macro possibilities built right into the lens. On the 90mm end of things I was never willing to pay the price of the 85mm f2 and I have the 100mm anyway. What has been a fun addition is a 90mm f2.5 Tamron SP macro lens. Very sharp, great bokeh for portraits and again that macro ability any time you want it. It has interchangeable mounts so I can use it on my old Spotmatic as well.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

What has been a fun addition is a 90mm f2.5 Tamron SP macro lens. Very sharp, great bokeh for portraits and again that macro ability any time you want it.

Totally right about this. Had it for about 6 months while I was saving for the 85mm f/2. A bit on the bulky side, but fun lens to use.

 

[stam6882]

50mm f/1.8 is a sleeper and you don't need an another 50mm.

I see 85mm or any Teles as special lenses that you don't use it very often.

Rather a 28mm f/3.5 is handy for streets.

Yes also agree here. The 50/1.8 has all the quality of a lightweight traveling camera with my OM-1n and the combo is very reliable. 28/2.8 or 28/3.5 is my next consideration.

 

[stam6882]

Talking about the OM 90mm f2 macro, not sure why it’s so special and very expensive. I am also looking at the Tamron 90mm SP f2.5 but not many on the market at the moment.

 

[btaylor]

looking at the Tamron 90mm SP f2.5 but not many on the market at the moment.

That’s often the case.

 

[Ben 4]

Can't disagree with the the many endorsements of the 28. The first OM lens I acquired after the 50 that came with the camera was the 28 3.5 in 1979. A tiny jewel, it remains one of my favorite and most used lenses!

 

[BHuij]

I've shot the 50mm f/1.8 for a while and recently got the f/1.4 version. As you're already aware, there's not some huge difference, but the extra 2/3 stop is always welcome. Seems the f/1.4s can be had for under $200 on a popular auction site, which seems pretty reasonable to me if you find yourself frequently pushing the limits of your f/1.8.

Even as someone who likes shooting macro, I don't know that I'd be interested in paying for the f/2 macro version. I picked up a set of extension tubes for the OM mount some years ago and have used them extensively with excellent results. FAR less expensive than a dedicated macro lens. Yes, I'm aware that there are tradeoffs (flat focus plane, etc. etc.). OM Zuiko lenses also seem to do a better job of close focusing even without tubes, than comparable lenses from my Canon SLRs.