OM Macro Lenses

[flip]

I am exploring the options for macro on the OM in part because it has been so enjoyable with the Pen. I simply want bigger negatives. I see a number of lenses out there, but the 20/2 and 38/2.8 in particular jump at me. I can lay my hands on the latter, or the screw mount version, but not the 20/2. Is it so rare? Which is a good one to look for? Not many opinions out there, in part due to rarity, I suspect.

 

[TXForester]

The OM macro I'm familiar with is the 50/3.5. I use it on my OM cameras and (with adapter) on my Olympus dSLR. Seems pretty sharp to me.

 

[Travis L.]

Second on the 50 3.5. Super sharp and inexpensive these days.

 

[Cale Arthur]

I wasn't aware of a screw-mount version of the 38/2.8 (other than the enlarging lens).. there was an RMS-thread 38/3.5, though. The ones you're speaking of are both OM bayonet, and are automatic diaphragm.

None of these lenses are common, all are reputed to be fantastic, and they seem to command a fair amount of money. If you haven't seen it, Alan Wood's page is a great resource for all things OM macro.

Also, the 50/1.8 is supposed to be great with extension tubes. Certainly a more affordable approach, if that's a concern.

 

[Roscoe]

I'll second the 50/3.5

 

[ruby.monkey]

Try a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 (72B). Gives 1:1 even before you add extension tubes or bellows, allows a civilised working distance, is reasonably cheap and easy to find, and works well as a general-purpose short tele too. You'll also get the added benefit of being able to mount it on a wide variety of cameras.

 

[Travis L.]

The Tamron 90 2.8 is probably the sharpest lens I've ever used. If you can find one in with an OM Adaptall mount it would be perfect.

 

[FTography]

The 50/3.5 certainly gives a good bang for the buck. I've seen great pictures from it being used as a "normal" (no pun intended) lens. As it's very affordable, that's the one I'd try.

PS: Due to its very recessed front lens, no hood is required for it to be used. Very nifty, that.

PS2: I've been able to cope with my Olympus GAS for a while now, but speaking of the affordable 50/3.5 may destroy my discipline... 😀

 

[Chris101]

... I've been able to cope with my Olympus GAS for a while now, but speaking of the affordable 50/3.5 may destroy my discipline... 😀

It's available for under a hundred bucks. Therefore I'd consider it GAS relief, so then it's good for you! Of course, then you'd want to get the 25mm extension ring that's made for it, and then a focussing rail. Of course the bellows would follow, ... >:-}

 

[FTography]

It's available for under a hundred bucks. Therefore I'd consider it GAS relief, so then it's good for you! Of course, then you'd want to get the 25mm extension ring that's made for it, and then a focussing rail. Of course the bellows would follow, ... >:-}

Oh well, I've accumulated two 50s and the 40/2.0, so I shouldn't really get the 50/3.5. Especially considering that I don't fancy shooting macros too much myself.
But that's just the forced rationality talking. 😀

 

[tomalophicon]

There is an 80 for use with bellows unit and a 90 f/2 macro that is INSANE. But it's costly.

 

[flip]

I have located this one. But the $600 gives great pause....
Optimum range ×1.7 – ×8.0 .