Using a macro lens for general photography. Thoughts?

[Patrick Robert James]

So...picking up a 50mm f1.8 sounds like it's not necessary, but a good idea.

Do you want one?

 

[KerrKid]

Do you want one?

I'm not really sure. For lower light levels it would be good. On the other hand, the macro really takes some nice pictures. I guess for the right price I would get one.

 

[Algo después]

I got the scans from The Darkroom today. Had them do the basic small ones. No color corrections or anything. Fujilfilm 200 at box speed. These photos were taken with the 50mm f3.5 macro on my Olympus OM2n. They appear to very sharp. I like this lens!

View attachment 337115

View attachment 337116

View attachment 337117

Nice pics. I had the chance to get my Om2n several months ago with a pretty nice kit which included a 28mm, auto bellows and a ton of other stuff for macro photography. Couldn't be happier with the price. I´m still shooting my first roll with the 50mm macro but until now I have seen superb results with this one.

 

[KerrKid]

Nice pics. I had the chance to get my Om2n several months ago with a pretty nice kit which included a 28mm, auto bellows and a ton of other stuff for macro photography. Couldn't be happier with the price. I´m still shooting my first roll with the 50mm macro but I have seen superb results with this one.

Sounds like you have quite the bargain. The 28mm would be nice to have. I don't know what an auto bellows is. I'll have to look that up. What is the "tonof other stuff for macro"? This is my first prime macro. I have some zoom lenses with macro but have never used them.

 

[Algo después]

Here´s a link with detailed gear for macro OM system

http://www.alanwood.net/olympus/index.html#macro


...several flashes, the varimagni finder, a slide copier, some filters, extension tubes, etc. I had a fuzzy project with macro photography but I haven´t chance to focus on it lately so, I´m going slow. Otoh I was tempted to get the auto-macro 20mm or 38mm lenses but testing the auto-bellows with the 3.5/50mm I think is enough for me, by now. The thing with the OM Olympus system is that you can get a solid gear with reasonable prices still.

 

[KerrKid]

Here´s a link with detailed gear for macro OM system

http://www.alanwood.net/olympus/index.html#macro


...several flashes, the varimagni finder, a slide copier, some filters, extension tubes, etc. I had a fuzzy project with macro photography but I haven´t chance to focus on it lately so, I´m going slow. Otoh I was tempted to get the auto-macro 20mm or 38mm lenses but testing the auto-bellows with the 3.5/50mm I think is enough for me, by now. The thing with the OM Olympus system is that you can get a solid gear with reasonable prices still.

View attachment 337146

That is an amazing set of gear.

 

[Paul Howell]

For macro work I use a bellows, I have 2, Konica, Miranda, and Pentax M42. I generaly use a 100mm. I guess I should find a short macro 100. Konica made a 105 that is somewhat rare, M42 will be plentiful. Last I time I used the Konica Bellows use it with a 70 to 150 close focus Vivitar S1 zoom.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I'm not really sure. For lower light levels it would be good. On the other hand, the macro really takes some nice pictures. I guess for the right price I would get one.

I have a friend who bought a 50 1.2 but no camera so I gave him the one I had. Now I have a 1.8 laying around. Want it?

 

[Huss]

I got the scans from The Darkroom today. Had them do the basic small ones. No color corrections or anything. Fujilfilm 200 at box speed. These photos were taken with the 50mm f3.5 macro on my Olympus OM2n. They appear to very sharp. I like this lens!

View attachment 337115

View attachment 337116

View attachment 337117

Score!

 

[KerrKid]

I have a friend who bought a 50 1.2 but no camera so I gave him the one I had. Now I have a 1.8 laying around. Want it?

Why, yes I do!

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Why, yes I do!

Send me your address then...

 

[benveniste]

My Olympus OM2n came with a 50mm f3.5 macro lens. I like it, but can it be used for general non-macro photography and, if so, what can I expect?

Yes, it can be used for general photography, but there are tradeoffs. Two have already been mentioned, which is the slower maximum aperture and that the lens design is optimized for closer distances. One which hasn't been mentioned is that so much of the focus "throw" is consumed in the close-up range, precise focusing at longer distances can be more difficult.

You can see this by looking at the focus ring. On the 50mm f/3.5, the 3 meter mark is right next to infinity. On a 50mm f/1.8 of the same era, there would be a 5 and 10 meter mark between 3 and infinity. At 200 grams, the 50mm f/3.5 is also heavier than a 50mm f/1.8 (158 grams).

Despite those tradeoffs, I used a 90mm f/2.5 macro lens as my short-tele/macro/portrait lens for a couple of decades, and my 105mm f/2.8 macro lens is sufficiently good as a portrait lens that I've never bothered with another 105mm prime.

 

[KerrKid]

Yes, it can be used for general photography, but there are tradeoffs. Two have already been mentioned, which is the slower maximum aperture and that the lens design is optimized for closer distances. One which hasn't been mentioned is that so much of the focus "throw" is consumed in the close-up range, precise focusing at longer distances can be more difficult.

You can see this by looking at the focus ring. On the 50mm f/3.5, the 3 meter mark is right next to infinity. On a 50mm f/1.8 of the same era, there would be a 5 and 10 meter mark between 3 and infinity. At 200 grams, the 50mm f/3.5 is also heavier than a 50mm f/1.8 (158 grams).

Despite those tradeoffs, I used a 90mm f/2.5 macro lens as my short-tele/macro/portrait lens for a couple of decades, and my 105mm f/2.8 macro lens is sufficiently good as a portrait lens that I've never bothered with another 105mm prime.

I noticed the short focus throw and actually like it. I don’t have any trouble seeing when focus is achieved although I haven’t tried in low light.

Those 90mm+ macros would be nice.

 

[ph]

As was remarked on page 1 of this thread, Alpa mount: Kern Macro- Switars are quite good;. They do not, however, fit on an OM body and even the japanese mounted genuine Kern lens blocks in M42mounts cannot be adapted (even on a native M42 body or adapted on a canon 5 digital, the mirror will strike the rear element when focussed to infinity )

Also the Macro Switars were made in such small numbers that their price puts them beyond practical use The digfferently constructed "made for Alpa swiss " lenses rather that the "made in switzerland" versions might pissibly be cheaper although they are also quite rare:

Another point raised earlier in this thread is that macros were designed for closeups and with a flat field in focus. Do take a look at the MTFcurves that Zeiss published for its original 60mm S-Planar for the Contax. That lens is designed to be used at 1:10 and the curves illustrate that. For film use with 3d subjects its higher enlargement capability of A4 sheets may not be called for and subjects at other distances will still be satisfactorily rendered.

p.

 

[KerrKid]

As was remarked on page 1 of this thread, Alpa mount: Kern Macro- Switars are quite good;. They do not, however, fit on an OM body and even the japanese mounted genuine Kern lens blocks in M42mounts cannot be adapted (even on a native M42 body or adapted on a canon 5 digital, the mirror will strike the rear element when focussed to infinity )

Also the Macro Switars were made in such small numbers that their price puts them beyond practical use The digfferently constructed "made for Alpa swiss " lenses rather that the "made in switzerland" versions might pissibly be cheaper although they are also quite rare:

Another point raised earlier in this thread is that macros were designed for closeups and with a flat field in focus. Do take a look at the MTFcurves that Zeiss published for its original 60mm S-Planar for the Contax. That lens is designed to be used at 1:10 and the curves illustrate that. For film use with 3d subjects its higher enlargement capability of A4 sheets may not be called for and subjects at other distances will still be satisfactorily rendered.

p.

That's why I took Patrick Robert James's generous offer to send me a 50mm f1.8 lens. Of course, I'm going to hear about how horrible that lens is and that I should have gotten a faster version instead, but the f1.8 is a great lens and anything else would be shooting above my pay grade.

 

[neilt3]

That's why I took Patrick Robert James's generous offer to send me a 50mm f1.8 lens. Of course, I'm going to hear about how horrible that lens is and that I should have gotten a faster version instead, but the f1.8 is a great lens and anything else would be shooting above my pay grade.

You can't go wrong with the 50mm f/1.8 .
Does the job , no problems.

 

[KerrKid]

You can't go wrong with the 50mm f/1.8 .
Does the job , no problems.

If it's anywhere near as sharp as the 50mm f3.5 macro, I'll be thrilled.

 

[Paul Howell]

Unless you are shooting either Microfiche or Ortho film, both the 50mm macro and the 1.8 version will resolve all general propose films including Tmax100.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Any true macro lens is flat-field and optimized for around 1X magnification. Just as a normal lens is not at its best performance at 1X, a macro lens will not be at its peak at infinity.

The Olympus 50mm ƒ/3.5 Auto-Macro has a floating element design. Its performance at infinity will likely be very very close to that of the 50 ƒ/1.8. Mounted on my Fuji X-E1, the Olympus 50 ƒ/3.5 is my highest resolution 50 at mid-distances (approx. 50 ft), both center and edge of the frame.

 

[KerrKid]

The Olympus 50mm ƒ/3.5 Auto-Macro has a floating element design. Its performance at infinity will likely be very very close to that of the 50 ƒ/1.8. Mounted on my Fuji X-E1, the Olympus 50 ƒ/3.5 is my highest resolution 50 at mid-distances (approx. 50 ft), both center and edge of the frame.

Very very good to know. I'm learning a lot and appreciate all the input. It looks like I'll have two great lenses to work with.

 

[quilts]

This has been a useful thread to read. I hadn't considered shooting everyday things with a macro lens, but I'll have to give it a try. Now I just have decide whether to get a macro lens for my Olympus OM-2n or my Nikon FE...

 

[xkaes]

I hadn't considered shooting everyday things with a macro lens, but I'll have to give it a try.

There's nothing illegal about using a macro lens as a normal lens -- at least not in my State -- but there are several limitations, mentioned above, when compared to normal lenses.

Similarly, there are also limitations -- in reverse -- in using a normal lenses for macro shots.

It works both ways.

And since excellent normal lenses and macro lenses can be found for peanuts, many people have both -- even cheapskates like me!

 

[KerrKid]

There's nothing illegal about using a macro lens as a normal lens -- at least not in my State -- but there are several limitations, mentioned above, when compared to normal lenses.

Similarly, there are also limitations -- in reverse -- in using a normal lenses for macro shots.

It works both ways.

And since excellent normal lenses and macro lenses can be found for peanuts, many people have both -- even cheapskates like me!

It's taking more and more of those peanuts lately. Still some good deals that pop up every now and then.

 

[eli griggs]

Do no forget that the Canon, 50mm, FD, 3.5 SSC Macro is also an excellent everyday carry lens and gives spectacular images, especially, tripod held with just the correct fill and background.

IMO.

 

[gordrob]

Do no forget that the Canon, 50mm, FD, 3.5 SSC Macro is also an excellent everyday carry lens and gives spectacular images, especially, tripod held with just the correct fill and background.

IMO.

An excellent lens