Macro Zuiko 50mm F3.5 - opinions?

I have been wondering this for some time now. I am curious to know

what real world experiences people have had with the 50mm F3.5 Macro

as a normal lens?<p>

The reason I ask, is that I know the F2 Macro is quite, "the legend".

But I am a real fan of the Xenotar lens design. Another sharpness

legend the Nikkor 55mm F3.5, is also a Xenotar design but seems to get

way more cudos.<p>

Opinions?

I own and use both the 50/3.5 Zuiko Macro and 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor. Very comparable performance.

 

The Zuiko Macro has served as my normal lens for most of this year since I dropped my 50/1.8 Zuiko, dinging the auto diaphragm mechanism enough to prevent functioning. Not worth repairing so I'll probably just replace it.

 

So, after months of using the 50/3.5 as a normal lens here are my general impressions:

 

1. Surprisingly sharp wide open, good enough for snapshots up to 8x10, maybe larger.

 

2. Snappy contrast (mine's the multicoated version).

 

3. Highly flare resistant due to the deeply recessed front element. No need for a separate lens shade. Makes for a very compact rig.

 

4. Funky bokeh. One of the rare Zuikos that doesn't have stellar bokeh when used wide open or nearly so. OOF foliage, for example, always a tricky subject, takes on odd, almost donut like patterns somewhat reminiscent of a mirror lens. Similiar, as well, to the S-K Xenotar in my Rolleiflex 2.8C, also an otherwise sharp and satisfying lens - lacking only in great bokeh.

 

5. A bit of a slug. Generally needs fast film to be useful as a substitute for a normal lens. OTOH, the attached photo was taken on a winter midday with FP4+ rated at EI 64. Exposure was around 1/30 or 1/60, f/3.5-f/4.

 

BTW, the above photo represents a 5x7 section taken from what would have been an enlargement exceeding 16x20 - I had to project it onto a wall to get this segment. Originally I'd framed my grandson horizontally, surrounding by our heavily shaded lakefront. Later I decided to crop it much closer as a conventional vertical. This is a scan from the print. The original is sharp enough that you can see I slightly misplaced the central focus onto his ear rather than his eyes.

 

In other words, the 50/3.5 Zuiko Macro makes a damned good all purpose lens.<div></div>

I love mine. Sharpest lens I own. This shot is either at 3.5 or 4.<div></div>

Lex: is that wierd bokeh, in your opinion?

That photo, Lex, is real good example of what you are talking about and the OOF areas do seem to be similar to the Xenotar I used to have as well. Also, 5x7 from a 16x20 print wide or nearly wide open? That is a real testament to the lens' resolving power.<p> Cheers

I have one too. I picked up a BGN quality one from KEH for like $90. It is in great condition (like KEH is known for) and is also very sharp. admitidly, I use it more for closeups and macro, but in the few times I have used it as a 50, I am very pleased with it. Every bit as good as my 50/1.8, just a little slower. And FWIW, I keep the 3.5 in my kit and only take the 1.8 when I know I am hand holding in low light.

 

Another plus for the 3.5 over the 2.0 macro is when you do macro you need as much dof as you can get so you rarely shoot at f2.0 where as f22 is MUCH more useful. At least to me.

 

But find an inexpensive one and it will not do you wrong.

I would pass on this lens, unless you wanted a single "day at the beach" lens or had a need to copy flat art works. Otherwise it's too slow for general use--evenings, inside darkened shops, homes, etc. And it's too short even for flowers (bokeh too poor and depth of field too great) and forget about getting close to butterflies and the like. I'd prefer any of the OM 50s over it--except silver noses. It has excellent performance, but limited practical utility.

I don't have any negative to use Zuiko 50/3.5 macro as a normal lens. But I am more prefer to use my 50/1.4 for that purpose. The bokeh of this lens is not bad at all, or even in postive side in my opinion. I will bring this lens if I travel. Is it perfect to shoot the food I eat or something in the close range?

Here is a sample photo using the Zuiko 50/3.5 macro lens at infinite and f=16. It performs well as a normal lens.<div></div>