Best macro film lenses for om-d

I was looking to adapt a Canon fd 100 f/4 macro on my olympus om-d e-m1. Anyone use this lens? How is sharpness, contrast, and

color? Any other good macro lenses under $200 (not 30mm panny, too short) with a faster aperture that is tack-sharp or close to it? I like

the idea of the olympus 60mm f/2.8 but it is just a tad too much.

 

Thanks.

 

Josiah.

<p>I would opt for 55mm f3.5 Nikkor with PK 13 extension ring coupled to Fotodiox Nikon to Olympus micro 4/3 body. As expected this is a manual focus lens that contains no automation! The crop factor of 2x leaves your lens as a 110mm with plenty of room to light the intended subject.</p>

<p>I was all ready to jump in on this one, "Best Macro Film Lenses" for the OMD and suggest hunting down one of the legendary macro OM lenses like the 90mm f2, then I saw "under $200" in your comments... :)</p>

<p>Vivitar made some excellent non-Series One macro lenses back during the time of the original Series One lenses, the 55mm f2.8 being one. You couldn't go wrong with a lens like this..</p>

<p>http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vivitar-Auto-Macro-55mm-f-2-8-Lens-Olympus-OM-Mount-/391566036139?hash=item5b2b278cab:g:PJ0AAOSwmfhX3yK5</p>

<p>Just find one and get the right adapter for the mount lens you purchase.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My first thought was the superb Kiron 105/2.8 (AKA the Lester Dine in the dental field) in a Canon FD or Nikon mount, but then I also noticed your price range which ruled it out. A great standby for almost any DSLR/SLR/MFT though is the Tamron 52B SP BBAR with an Adaptall II mount for your camera. It is a 90mm f2.5, and it is usually in your price range. Being an older lens, it is only available 2nd hand, but plentiful on the big auction site or somewhere like KEH. Although it only goes to 1:2, you can easily get the 1:1 teleconverter for it. I've had two of them but sold the teleconverter. Here's a link to info on it http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/52B.html</p>

I find my old FD 50mm 3.5 macro to work well with an adapter of course. I have no idea what they go for now.

Note also that FD lenses used on mirrorless will take advantage of the best part of the lens circle. Tack sharp and even sharp as a samurai's sideburns I have found. Macro lenses have always come in the top rank of manufacturers' products. That FD macro I mentioned seems to be going for peanuts now and it is such a winner. If you need the long distance of the 100 mm then go for it I am sure you will be pleased. And not a large outlay, such is the beauty of all those old lenses.

<p>I love macro photography and have found that extension tubes on many of the various 'typical' Olympus lenses, especially primes, I currently own work extremely well. You might want to give them a try as they (extension tubes) are quite affordable. The results are in fact so good that I decided not to purchase a dedicated macro lens.</p>

<p>My experience with my Nikon 55mm f3.5 (the only Nikon lens I kept when I switched to µ43) has been just great.</p>

<p>To echo Elliott's comments about using extension tubes, I bought a set of Kenko dedicated tubes a while back for Micro four-thirds and used them extensively with the 75-300 M. Zuiko prior to picking up the 40-150mm f2.8. The 75-300 with the Kenko tubes is quite a powerhouse setup for close-up photography.</p>

<p>The Kenko tubes are not inexpensive, but allow for the continued communication between body and lens with all functions maintained and are probably the best-made tubes dedicated for the micro four-thirds system.</p>

<p>The 40-150/2.8 goes so close on it's own, the tubes are not needed except for the closest of work. </p>

<p>All I can say is that I have inhabited various macro forums for a number of years and don't recall a Canon fd 100 f/4 being credited.</p>

<p>Late follow-up but I have heard about the canon 100mm f4 as being an excellent lens. But then thats what they say about all the macro lenses.</p>

<p>One that I use the most is the Nikon 55mm f2.8. Absolutely stellar lens on mirrorless cameras.<br>

<br />Very inexpensive to buy. Easier to focus manually than the f3.5 Nikkor.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In October I bought (£180, a low price for this) an Olympus 4/3 Digital 50mm f2 ED macro. I did this based on its reputation. I already had a 4/3 to m4/3 adapter for use with an OM to 4/3 adapter and OM lenses.<br>

I have been using it for moderate macro (life size with m4/3 crop) and it at least matched the Kiron (Lester Dine) 105 I had found to give superb results (better than OM 50mm macro and Leitz Elmarit 60mm macro, etc.). It is equally good with 43/ TCs, although I have only recently started using them. I also have a 4/3 25mm extension tube. These are some of the lower power shots.<img src="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/98/1363798.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="768" /><img src="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/97/1364697.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="768" /><br>

<img src="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/34/1365134.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="1227" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here is a closer shot.<br>

<img src="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/97/1365897.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="812" /></p>