Zuiko 50mm f1.4 vs f2.0 Macro

[msbarnes]

I'm filling in my Zuiko kit.

I want a standard lens. I don't care for clinical sharpness, super narrow DOF, but I do care for nice bokeh. The f1.2 is too expensive, the f2.0 is slightly cheaper but with patience I might be able to score a good deal. The f1.4 I can pretty much obtain anytime for <$100.

How is the bokeh and sharpness of these two lenses at f2.0. Is there any reason in getting the macro lens if you aren't going to use it for macro? I'm not that interested in macro but I'd do it occasionally, I guess.

[f16sunshine]

If it was me I would get a f1.4 and a 3.5/macro.
The f3.5 macro is a very nice optic for occasional a close focus use.
It's cheap also.
Another good choice would be to simply pick up an extension tube set to use with any of your lenses in close.

I've used the 2/50 macro. It's one of the best Zuikos offered. I'm not sure it's a great normal. The extra weight and long heavier focus action are a bit cumbersome.

[msbarnes]

Yeah, I think I'm just going to go with the venerable 50mm f1.4 as of now. It makes most sense to me.

[redisburning]

Originally Posted by msbarnes

Is there any reason in getting the macro lens if you aren't going to use it for macro? I'm not that interested in macro but I'd do it occasionally, I guess.

I use the 50/3.5 as my main OM lens.

I don't even bother with the 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 I kept most of the time. I like the macro a LOT better. YMMV

[dtcls100]

I don't have a Zuiko 50mm f1.4, but I do have the Zuiko 50mm f2.0 macro, 50mm F3.5 macro, and multiple Zuiko 50mm f1.8 (including the silver nose, later MC Japan version, and last MIJ version). All are very fine lenses in their own way.

That said, I do think the 50mm f2.0 is the best of all of the 50mm lenses I have. It is very sharp (as are most of my other 50mm Zuikos). But what sets it apart is that it clearly has the most pleasing rendering and the smoothest, creamiest and best bokeh by some margin. It is excellent as both a macro lens and as a general purpose normal lens. I believe the Mike Johnston, editor of Photo Techniques has written that he thinks the 50mm f2.0 macro is perhaps the very best normal lens out there at any price (and he claims to have used almost everything including the Leica Summicron).

The biggest drawback of the lens is clearly the price, typically being in the $500-$700 range. Having such an expensive and not too readily replaceable lens does make one reluctant to take it out in adverse conditions (rain, beach, etc.) where one could get some really nice photos. The next biggest drawback is the lens is a bit chunky and will obstruct mounting an OM camera (without winder or motor drive) onto some larger tripod head disks. While I don't consider this a drawback, as mentioned above the 50 f2.0 does have a very long focus throw which appears intended to permit critical focusing adjustments for macro photography.