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

[flip]

I've watched 40's pass by for under $400 and while the novelty of trying one appealed, I am glad I got the 50/2 macro. The 40 is small, certainly, but not 38/2.8 pen lens small. So, if compact were the concern, I'd be more inclined to go towards a wider, cheaper lens and get some variety in my bag.

Then again, when I want compact, I don't bring an SLR.

 

[wblynch]

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.

I have shot with neither.

I did not state an uninformed opinion I asked if looking at two 'equivalent' prints or scans, could anyone (should have said most people) really tell them apart.

Post some examples if you would. Let's see what you so expertly detect.

Until someone proves otherwise, I remain skeptical.

-Bill

 

[redisburning]

no.

I will not spend my time rifling through old pictures to satisfy your trollish behavior.

I've said my piece on the two lenses and people are free to take from that what they will. I have a few shots from both on my flickr for people who really care.

I have shot with neither.

yeah, that's about what I expected.

 

[maitani]

the macro is stellar, one of the best 50 I have tested., microcontrast is up there with the 90 macro

the 40/2 is about the size, has a very unique signature a little similar to a cron v. 4. but bein a 40 and a pancake it's rather unique., but its lacks the sharp and defined output of the 50 macro. esp wide open. decide if size, or quality matter more to you

 

[jcb4718]

I have a 50mm f2 and a 35mm f2.8. I also have two standard 50mm lenses, the f1.8 and the f1.4. I've never had a 40mm f2. In my experience you would be hard pushed to distinguish between the lenses on the basis of sharpness alone. They are all sharp enough at, say, f8 and any differences are unlikely to matter in a real print. What is noticeable, even on a 6x4 print, is vignetting and bokeh (particularly highlights) at the larger apertures. My 35mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.8 have poor bokeh and vignetting at large apertures. For both lenses, OOF highlights have a ring-like appearance and at the edges are flattened, too. This is just the way these lenses were designed. The 50mm f1.4 is much much better in both these respects and this is why its my ususl lens of choice, despite being slightly larger. In fact its because the lens is larger that it is better optically and I'm happy to make the compromise. The 50mm f2 is bigger still and of course this is to obtain the macro performance. The bokeh at large apertures is not great; as a marco lens it tends to be best when stopped down. Unless I'm actually taking a macro shot, it's not worth the extra bulk.

 

[Trius]

35/2.8 FP4+ Rodinal

 

[Koolzakukumba]

The 50mm f2 is bigger still and of course this is to obtain the macro performance. The bokeh at large apertures is not great; as a marco lens it tends to be best when stopped down. Unless I'm actually taking a macro shot, it's not worth the extra bulk.

This is an old thread but I felt it still worthwhile to comment about this quote. I've been using the 50mm f2 auto-macro for a while now and the bokeh wide open is very nice. Here's a shot taken at f2 on Adox CHS 100 II and developed in Spur HRX.

I've compared the bokeh of this lens with other Zuikos, a Zeiss Planar and a couple of Pentax lenses - a 55mm Takumar and the 50mm f1.7 M - and it's better than all of them. It might not have the absolute best bokeh but I think it's lovely. For anyone thinking of getting one, don't let this put you off.

 

[Frontman]

I have had and used every type of 50mm Zuiko lens made, and though each has it's strong points, the best overall is the basic 50/1.8. There is nothing in the 40/2 to justify it's high price outside it's rarity, the 50/2 is outstanding, but it is larger and heavier, it's price/performance ratio is not as good as the 50/1.8. I also like the 55/1.2, I love to take close up shots with the lens wide open, the lens delivers very dreamy-like images.

With the cheap lens, I don't have to be overly concerned about it getting dinged up, or getting wet in the rain. If I drop it, or somehow mess it up, I can get another for $30 or so.

 

[redisburning]

my last post in this thread was before I owned the 50/2.0 OM Macro.

having had both the 40/2.0 and the 50/2.0 Macro, I can say the 50 wins easily for me. I'd also put the 50/1.2, 55/1.2 and 50/3.5 above the 40. The 40 ties the pedestrian 50s for me; I just don't dig them. Yes, I've owned EVERY single one of the lenses that have been discussed here. Shot them on film, and on digital.

The 50/2 is a very special lens to me, it is my favorite made by any manufacturer. I like it so much I got the 90/2 macro too, which is similarly amazing:

Oh My by redisburning, on Flickr