Using a macro lens for general photography. Thoughts?

[KerrKid]

Look for a cheap OM-10 with a 50mm f/1.8 mounted on it - but watch out for the sluggish apertures.

Ok. That answers a question I hadn't asked about the OM-10. Worth having or just worth having for an end cap?

 

[wattda]

Last year I was going to see my kids basketball, I forgot to change lenses and was stuck with a Nikon 105 mm micro/macro lens. Worked surprising well, even for sports.

 

[faberryman]

Last year I was going to see my kids basketball, I forgot to change lenses and was stuck with a Nikon 105 mm micro/macro lens. Worked surprising well, even for sports.

Why were you surprised it worked well, even for sports?

 

[benjiboy]

What does the 100mm macro give you over the 50mm?

You can stay far enough away from the subject so you don't get into your own light.

 

[Cholentpot]

I use a Micro Nikkor 55 3.5 for a walkaround lens and it's fantastic. It's sharper than the 1.8 and allows you to dial in the focus. I use an EF 100 2.8 macro for portrait work and it's also fantastic, maybe a bit too sharp.

 

[wattda]

Why were you surprised it worked well, even for sports?

Thought it would be the wrong focal length, as it wasn't the lens I wanted to shoot with that day. But it worked out.

 

[MattKing]

Ok. That answers a question I hadn't asked about the OM-10. Worth having or just worth having for an end cap?

They are really light in weight. They are best if you use them in Auto mode - the optional accessory manual adapter works, but is a bit kludgy, and can be more expensive than the camera.
A much less commonly encountered option is the successor OM 20/OM-G. It is basically an OM-10 with manual built in, and most of the bugs worked out.
Here is one of the two I had, with aforementioned 50mm f/1.8 (and the useful accessory finger grip) attached:

This camera has, IMHO, the best implementation of a self timer switch ever!

 

[KerrKid]

They are really light in weight. They are best if you use them in Auto mode - the optional accessory manual adapter works, but is a bit kludgy, and can be more expensive than the camera.
A much less commonly encountered option is the successor OM 20/OM-G. It is basically an OM-10 with manual built in, and most of the bugs worked out.
Here is one of the two I had, with aforementioned 50mm f/1.8 (and the useful accessory finger grip) attached:
View attachment 336987
This camera has, IMHO, the best implementation of a self timer switch ever!

Thanks for the info. I need another camera body like a hole in the head, but I may jump on one if a good deal presents itself.

 

[ChrisLLUK]

I quite often use my Tamron SP 90mm macro as a general lens on my Olympus OM3. Great lens, and at F2.5 decently fast.

 

[eli griggs]

No, they are really good lenses. I often use macro lenses for gen photography. The only time you are hamstrung is when the light gets low as f3.5 is not as handy as 1.8

But it will be sharper.

 

[xkaes]

I am not familiar with that particular lens, but a lot of macro lenses are optimized for close distance and not ideal for infinity. Also, they tend to be heavier and slower.

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.

I've taken some great shots with non-macro lenses at 1X -- and vise-versa -- but for normal magnification I want the speed and the better performance of a normal lens, where I often want a narrow DOF or faster shutter speed.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

above average optical performance is what you can expect!

 

[xkaes]

above average optical performance is what you can expect!

...at the magnification that it was designed for.

 

[MattKing]

...at the magnification that it was designed for.

It is designed for uniformly high quality performance over a wide range of magnifications. That is accomplished by, among other things, incorporating floating element technology.
Olympus OM series came from a company that was particularly strong in high magnification photography efforts.
Your observation would be correct if you were referencing one of the lenses that was designed specifically for high magnification work only - such as the Zuiko Macro 38mm/F3.5:

 

[symbolica]

I just want to echo what Huss and the others have said: this is a fantastic lens. It’s been the primary lens on my OM4 for many years now. Close-ups are great, obviously, but what really blew me away was how well it handles landscapes…the level of detail it can resolve with a film like Velvia is really impressive. I think I read somewhere the design is based off the Xenotar? It’s crazy sharp. Have fun with it!

 

[mshchem]

My issue with f3.5 or 2.8 50-55 mm on any manual focus, older SLR, is focusing in dim light. Growing up with a Nikon F2S and a 55mm f3.5 Micro Nikkor, no thanks. Great lens in bright daylight, indoors hard to focus, and I was a kid.

 

[Huss]

But it will be sharper.

Not at 1.8 it won’t…

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

Slightly off topic: I'm seconding MattKing's comments on the Oly OM-G/OM20 bodies.

While there were MANY less of these sold than the earlier, longer-running OM10 - so they're not as plentiful today - the OM20 is a significantly improved camera. It's got a manual shutter speed control ring around the lens mount just like the single-digit OMs, a PC connection for off-camera flash, better top-deck controls, and a couple of other improvements. If you can get a working one, it's a very usable camera.

Olympus OM-10/20/30/40 - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

camera-wiki.org

I have had hands-on with both - my sister got an OM10 in 1981 and I got an OM-G in 1983. I didn't get my OM-2n until 20 years later, so I used my OM-G plenty. The Auto mode on both the OM10 and OM20 yielded the same great results as with the OM-2. Sure, these bodies are more plasticky and their electronics are cheaper, so they don't hold up as well. That's why there are so many marginal or inoperable ones today. (The last time I put batteries in my OM-G to check it out, the meter was completely dead... but the manual shutter speeds still worked perfectly.)

Of course, KerrKid already has an OM-2n, so he doesn't need another OM body... But as suggested above, there are so many OM10s and OM20s out there on dealer and auction sites (including less specialized, serious ones like Goodwill and Craigslist) with standard 50/1.8 Zuiko lenses attached that it's likely the cheapest way to get one of those lenses if you feel that you need a fast 50. (Personally, I never mount my 50/1.8, I use the 35/2 as my "normal lens", but that's another story.)

 

[faberryman]

Sure, these bodies are more plasticky and their electronics are cheaper, so they don't hold up as well. That's why there are so many marginal or inoperable ones today. (The last time I put batteries in my OM-G to check it out, the meter was completely dead... but the manual shutter speeds still worked perfectly.)

Plasticky bodies with cheap electronics work well until they don't. They also can't be repaired. If you want an Olympus SLR, I recommend getting a single digit OM now while they are still readily available and not silly expensive.

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

Right. But it's a worthwhile investment if you can score an OM10 with a 50mm lens for less than just the lens itself typically costs!

As I said, my OM-G meter no longer works. But when I sold my sister's OM10 two years ago, its meter/shutter was still working perfectly.

 

[KerrKid]

I routinely look at lesser bodies in a particular range to find a nice lens hanging off the front of one of them. I've gotten a few very good lenses this way.

The 35mm/f2 would seem to match up well with the OM2n and aren't that expensive. I think I'll look through the fence at them for now, though, and see what the 50mm f3.5 macro can deliver.

I should be getting my developed color film back from The Darkroom shortly. We'll see how that turns out.

 

[bags27]

Love the Zeiss 100 zm lens for Nikon. Just superb rendering.

 

[xkaes]

I routinely look at lesser bodies in a particular range to find a nice lens hanging off the front of one of them. I've gotten a few very good lenses this way.

That's exactly how I got my 24-200mm a-mount zoom. It was on a Maxxum 5 on EBAY -- but the lens was never mentioned. It was just shown in the pictures. I got them both for $25 -- and sold the Maxxum 5 for $25 because I already had one.

 

[KerrKid]

That's exactly how I got my 24-200mm a-mount zoom. It was on a Maxxum 5 on EBAY -- but the lens was never mentioned. It was just shown in the pictures. I got them both for $25 -- and sold the Maxxum 5 for $25 because I already had one.

Great find! I'm going to see if I can duplicate that.

 

[KerrKid]

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!