Which Zuiko - 50mm f2 macro or 40mm f2?

[Koolzakukumba]

I have a beautiful 50mm f2 macro Zuiko, the one that Mike Johnston rates as possibly the best fifty, but have hardly used it. I'm trying to put together a compact SLR outfit and had thought of selling or swapping the 50mm and getting a 40mm pancake to mate with an OM2.

I'm wondering a couple of things. Is the f2 macro really as good as some people claim and would the pancake be a match for it? And am I right in thinking that the respective values of the lenses is so close as to make a direct swap possible?

The only thing stopping me making more use of the f2 macro is it's larger size in relation to the normal standard Zuiko plus the fact that I hardly ever do any macro work! I feel I'd make a lot more use of the pancake but there's a nagging doubt that I might be giving up too much if I sell/swap the macro.

 

[f16sunshine]

The 40mm I had for a few years was not sharp at wide open if that is important to you. Looking at your beautiful work in the gallery it appears that you shoot with great DOF often so it may not matter.
The 40 is much, much lighter and more compact of course. My advise would be to do your own comparison before letting the 50mm go.

 

[ferider]

What Andy said.

You could do something else, too: if you don't need the macro focus, swap your 50/2 against a MIJ 50/1.8 and save a bunch of money. My 50/1.8 is not much bigger than my 40/2, and much sharper in the corners wide open. Very similar to my best Leica lenses. And the 40/2 handling takes getting used to since the filter is mounted on the aperture ring.

Roland.

 

[Cutly]

keep the 50/2.

 

[zuiko85]

I've had two 40 f2's pass through my hands. Both too perfect and pretty to use. Both worth much more than I paid for them and so they were sold to finance more practical gear.

The 40mm f2 Zuiko is not much more compact than a 50mm f1.8 standard. It's compactness comes at a price. The front aperture ring is also the filter ring (49mm) and so rotates when you change apertures. This might not matter unless you want to use a polarizing filter. The front element is *very* close to the front of the lens, not much setback. So an errant finger will leave a smuge and a accidental bump could damage the element. For moderate wide angle I finally chose a 35mm f2.8 Zuiko, a tiny bit bigger and a stop slower but, at the time only $50. Actually, quite a few of the Olympus Zuiko wide angle lenses have minimum set back of their front elements. I've taken to leaving on a metal rim filter with it's glass removed to gain a bit of protection.

These observations are of course just my opinion and preferences so take them for what you will.

 

[sevo]

The real question is: Will a pancake be better/more useful for to YOUR photography? If smaller=better the pancake will do it, if close range correction and large magnification matter, the macro. In any other case, the choice of one or the other will not be visible in the results (other than by the minor difference in focal length).

I've yet to encounter a single photographer who owes his prominence or relevance to owning the lenses with the best optical specifications...

 

[ChrisP]

50/1.8 MIJ should do everything you want and its 1/3 EV brighter too!

 

[Dirk]

In my opinion, the rendering of the 50/2 looks nicer than the 40/2. There's something special about the 50/2 that the 40/2 lacks.

 

[sevres_babylone]

I have the 40mm. Ditto pretty much everyone above, especially Ferider and zuiko85.

 

[FTography]

For a while now, I have owned the 40mm pancake, and I am an avid lover of the little gem.
But the reasons why I love it might not be the ones obvious at first glance for anyone who has never owned the lens.

Without a doubt, there are plenty of reasons pulling the pancake's value for money into question:
The 50/1.8 is nearly as compact (one filter height higher) as the 40mm.
It is easier to use for polarizing filters.
It is much cheaper.
I have experienced it to be about as sharp as the 40mm - occasionally outperforming it.
If you enjoy using a polarizer frequently, forget about the pancake.
All these facts make the 50/1.8 the most suitable lens in the OM system to compare to the 40mm pancake.

But there are two reasons why my 50/1.8 mij does and will not ever replace the pancake as my personal favourite all-round Zuiko.
- The regular MFD does not permit as high a maximum magnification as the pancake.
- It does not have a focal length of 40mm. This is an often neglected fact when comparing these lenses.
The viewing angle difference (56° compared to 47°, respectively) is a very significant one. For me, anyway.
While it is close to a 50mm standard, the 40mm pancake certainly has some wide-angle DNA.

Using a 50mm exclusively can result in a need to back away from the object to cover it entirely.
Sometimes, this is not possible, the subject might disappear too quickly, or the viewing angle lends a wrong (rather: an undesired) perspective.
Therefore, I personally prefer lenses that are a tad wider than a 50mm.
Combined with these features, its ability to capture regular images and higher-than-usual magnifications (for a non-macro lens w/o extension rings anyway), make it my favourite one-for-all lens.

But truth be told, it does happen frequently that I also pack a wide-angle and possibly a medium tele lens. Carrying around, say, three lenses certainly diminishes the already slight measurement advantage of the 40mm compared to the 50/1.8.

Seeing as you have the magnificient 50/2.0 Macro, there are two (well, three) options that I would suggest you consider.
a) You're a one-lens shooter. Some loss in absolute image quality is acceptable for you, as you gain a little more flexibility in a much smaller package (compared to the macro).
=> Sell the macro, get the pancake.
b) You like more flexibility and don't mind carrying some load. Most times you won't be able to limit yourself to just one lens. And/or: Your polarizing filter is your best friend.
=> Keep the macro, and add further lenses to taste.
a+b=c) There are days where you enjoy carrying just one lens, while there are days where you require focal length flexibility.
=> Do all of the above.

Option a1): Buy the pancake, but carry around an extension tube and/or macro magnifying filter for close-up shots.

 

[Frontman]

I have a pretty big collection of OM gear, and I still find the cheap 50/1.8 Zuiko to be the lens which i always use.

I don't know why the pancake lenses are so desirable, I also shoot with Nikon equipment, and find their expensive 45mm pancake lenses to be mediocre performers, working less well than a standard 50/1.8 while costing several times as much.

For the Olympus, my kit consists of four lenses, the 21/3.5, 50/1.8, 55/1.2, and the 90/2 macro. The 21 is a superb wide angle, very compact, and quite sharp. The 50 is my usual go-to lens, the 55 I live to use on close-up wide aperture shots, and the 90 i find useful for shooting on the streets without getting in people's faces.

 

[sreed2006]

Both lenses have their strengths their weaknesses.

Strengths:
40/2 has a small size and weight, and a wider angle.
50/2 has the better image quality, and also has close-up ability. Does not need a hood.

Weaknesses:
40/2 flares easily, requiring a hood. The aperture adjustment ring is at front of lens.
50/2 is bigger and heavier. It has a long throw on the focus ring. Probably need a tripod for close-ups.

If you have used the 50/2 and liked the image quality with it, then I recommend that you keep it. If you do close-up photography once in awhile, it's a great lens to have handy.

The 40/2, while also a fine lens, almost always requires the use of a hood. That means it is really bigger than the lens body's measurements would tell you, and the hood adds more clutter in the camera bag. Plus there's the annoyance that you can't put the cap on the lens while the hood is in place. As already mentioned above, using a polarizing filter requires re-adjusting the filter after any change in aperture.

In the final analysis, it really depends on what the role of the lens will be. For a light walk-about lens with no close-ups, the 40/2 is the better choice. For the best image quality you can get in a Zuiko, even up close, the 50/2 is the better choice.

 

[Trius]

No lens is "perfect" but many are perfectly suited to one's needs, although not perhaps to one's wish list. I've never owned the 40/2 due to its price, but I've used a variety of Zuiko 40 or 42 mm lenses on the fixed RFs, and they have all been at least very good. If the 40/2 didn't exactly match the 50/1.4 in rendering, I would have to decide if the differences mattered that much for the type of work I normally do. The problem with theoretical or lab bench specifications is that it consumes time best used making photos.

Personally I like small/compact, but the 50/1.4 is not a burden; it's about the same size as a Hexanon 50/1.7 and many other 50s of similar speed in other mounts.

 

[Koolzakukumba]

In terms of size, I don't think I can really make a case for the 40mm, having given it some thought. It's about 6mm shorter than the 50mm f1.8. I'd definitely want to put a filter on the pancake to protect my investment and I wouldn't bother doing that with the standard 50mm. Since a filter adds about 6mm, it's a dead heat! The angle of view is a different matter. Like a lot of people, I find the 40mm focal length to be about perfect for a walkabout lens. However, I've been out shooting today with the 50mm macro on an OM2n and it was a great experience. In terms of handling, the macro is lovely. What I really liked was the way the scene snapped in and out of focus so well.

My walkabout lens up until now has tended to be a 35mm - or 40mm if I have one. The fifty did a super job of fulfilling the role and, although it's quite a bit bigger than the standard 50 or 40mm pancake, it didn't feel heavy after walking around with the camera in my right hand for about an hour. I'll be developing the roll of Agfa APX100 from the OM2n in a day or two and will try to post a shot when I get the results.

I'll be doing a fuller write-up of the 50mm macro on my blog (below) later this week in case you're interested to read further. Thanks again for all the input - very interesting stuff!

 

[redisburning]

I've owned the 40/2.

I wish I owned the 50/2 macro. But every time I seem ready to buy one, I remember that I use my Leica a good bit more and the 4-600 asking price of that zuiko goes towards a turntable or some other fool toy.

my impression of the 40/2 was positive on the image quality front but much less so mechanically.

so, to answer your questions:

Is the f2 macro really as good as some people claim?

even if I haven't used it I can tell you it's a very good lens. having investigated it, I ultimately came to the conclusion that there are (slightly) better lenses at a near enough price point I could live without it (mainly the Zeiss 50/1.4 planar and even a ZF.1 makro-planar). however, if I had one I suspect I'd love it just like I love my 50/3.5 macro. I might also change my mind; remember this is a second hand assessment.

would the pancake be a match for it?

I don't think so. If I assume that the 50/2 is as good as my 50/3.5 but faster then already the answer is no, at least as far as I saw.

And am I right in thinking that the respective values of the lenses is so close as to make a direct swap possible?

if you can find someone with a 40/2 that would trade you, yes. I think if you sold and bought you would be able to but you would need to be patient. last I saw the 50/2 was worth a bit more than the 40/2 but such things change quickly and I haven't looked in over a month (buying too many classical lps).

hope that helps.

 

[wblynch]

Could anyone really tell a photo from the 40/2.0 apart from the 35/2.8?

It just seems like nonsense to me.

I know someone will post links to 2 photos with nothing in common and try to point out the superiority of the 40 but I'm not buying it.

I would like to see the same scene, shot back to back with the two of them.

Skeptically yours, Bill

 

[FTography]

A 35mm is a 35mm.
A 40mm is a 40mm.
And, a 50mm is a 50mm.

😉 You might find technical parameters (such as sharpness, vignette...) to compare the lenses, but in my opinion that's just comparing apples and pears. At least so long as someone is looking for a specific focal length/view angle.

I would have all non-macro 50mm lenses to compare to my 40mm pancake, but I am not motivated to do a somewhat standardized test.
I've never used the 35/2.8, although I've been curiously looking at it for a while. Don't see any necessity with my current gear, though.

 

[Koolzakukumba]

Could anyone really tell a photo from the 40/2.0 apart from the 35/2.8?

It just seems like nonsense to me.

I know someone will post links to 2 photos with nothing in common and try to point out the superiority of the 40 but I'm not buying it.

I would like to see the same scene, shot back to back with the two of them.

Skeptically yours, Bill

Good point, Bill. I think it might be difficult to tell them apart in prints but you can certainly tell them apart when you're actually taking the photographs. With a 40mm lens, you can effectively switch between the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths just by moving a few feet closer or further away. If you have just one lens with you then that extra versatility can be very useful. But from your perspective, I think you're probably right. I'll need to shoot the same subject with the 35mm and then move back a little bit with a 40mm to put it to the test.

 

[redisburning]

Could anyone really tell a photo from the 40/2.0 apart from the 35/2.8?

I can.

I'm sorry. But every time someone says the 35/2.8 is good I feel like this:

:bang:

it is without question the worst first party prime I have ever used. the 40/2 is considerably different; faster, sharper and more pleasing OoF. as far as I am concerned it is strictly better excluding price and handling.

I guess if you shoot tri-x pushed to 1250 cooked in 75+ degree water it won't make much of a difference but I overwhelmingly shoot acros and delta and it was obvious. even more so on digital.

Shoot mid distance and at mid aperture and the 40/2 has bite and a pleasing rendering; the 35/2.8 gives smoother surfaces an awful plasticy look.

I shot a LOT with the 35 because I so desperately wanted to like it due to the focal length. I didn't love the 40/2 but it's in a different league all-together.

Here's a legitimate question, have you used both? If not, maybe you should actually ask for opinions rather than express your uninformed opinion in the form of a question like we're on the anti-snobbery version of jeopardy.

Where is your opinion coming from? Samples? Second hand? Well actually that sort of thing is fine with me if you at least state up front that's where it's coming from. Instead you put it out there like you've done the tests yourself even though the gist of your post makes it seem like you havent even touched a 40/2.

 

[Archlich]

A bit off topic but I'm constantly in search of the hypothetical Voigtlander 40/2 Ultron SL in OM mount. It's of the same formula to all other Ultron 40/2s and should deliver similar modern, excellent performance optically.

Seen one on the 'bay during the past two years, and in seconds it's already gone...