Opinions on OM4t and 50/2 macro?

[david.elliott]

Hi all,

I'm thinking about getting an om4t and 50/2 macro lens. Might be a nice carry around camera that I (or my girlfriend) can use while we are out and about.

How's the viewfinder for glasses wearers? Any general thoughts on the camera? General thoughts on the lens?

I've had difficulty locating any sample photos from the lens on flickr (my searching skills are terrible). I keep getting the various other 50mm lenses for the om system tossed into the results. Please feel free to post samples.

I'm mostly interested in opinions about the om4t and the 50/2 macro, but I looked through some of the wider lens samples and the flickr samples seem to show a fair amount of distortion for the 24 and 28mm lenses, so I'd probably just stick to the 50/2 macro and maybe the 85 or one of the 100mm lenses as a small kit. How is the 35mm too?

Edit - I also have a leicaflex sl2 with 3 cam 50/2 cron (fairly late). Any comparisons / thoughts / opinions to this setup would also be helpful.

Thanks in advance.

[sreed2006]

The OM-4T is fine for glasses wearers. I use the diopter adjustment and take my glasses off usually.

The 50/2 is a great lens that produces excellent photographs, but is larger and heavier than what is comfortable to carry around all day. I personally don't mind the fact that the focusing ring takes a lot of turns to go from 1/2 life size close-ups to infinity, but have seen other users comment that working the focusing ring is too much.

For a carry-around lens, the 50/1.8 is more appropriate, as is the 50/1.4.

[FrankS]

I found the OM4's metering too complex and fiddly for my needs. (Not complex in the sense that I couldn't understand it.) i know that one doesn't need to use the spot metering and highlight/shadow buttons, but then one could just use an OM2n with an even better viewfinder.

[redisburning]

if the cron you have is the same formulation as the v4/5 summicron-M I wouldn't bother getting anything else.

sure, there are acceptable substitutes, but there isn't anything better.

anyway the OM cameras are nice but I'd stick to the 1/2 personally.

[aleksanderpolo]

The 50/2 macro is excellent if you need macro capability from time to time. Bokeh can be a little busy. If you don't need macro 50/1.4 (late serial) will do.

[FrankS]

The OM4 is one of those special cameras that you should at least try. It may just click for you.

[dtcls100]

I have both. Great lens and body combination. 50 f2 macro is extremely sharp, well built, and has beautiful color and gorgeous bokeh with little or no distortion. One of the very best 50mm produced by anyone. Potential drawbacks are that it has an extremely long focus throw (for precise macro focusing), and it is a bit chunky (although not unduly heavy) so that it may not mount properly on a wide tripod head without a winder/motor drive mounted. Uses 55mm filters.

[Shutterspark]

One of the best film SLRs with one of the best 50mm lenses is never going to be a bad combination.

If you don't need the advanced spot metering (the best meter in any camera to date IMO) then an OM2 or OM2n would make a good alternative.
The difference in viewfinders is pretty insignificant if you ask me, but the earlier OMs with brass gears feel smoother. Biggest advantage with an OM2/OM2n is price.

Your choice of lens is good if you're set on only having the one, but as already mentioned you might want to opt for the 50/1.8 as a compact walkaround option. They're so cheap I don't see any reason for anyone with an OM to not have one.

The 50/2 macro is a better lens, but the visible difference will be pretty small or insignificant for many shots while the considerably heavier weight, larger size and longer focusing throw will be there for each and everyone.

[BardParker]

I have an OM4-T and I love it. I bought it with the 50mm f/3.5 macro and it sure is sharp. I've added the 35mm f/2 lens as well and the 50mm f/1.4. Check to see if the camera has the newer battery circuitry by turning the battery check switch forward. There should be a continuous tone for about 30 seconds and then it should shut off. The metering system is as simple or as sophisticated as you want it to be. It's really not difficult to learn.

Check out the manual at: http://http://35mm-compact.com/pdf/olympus-om4.pdf

Regards,
Kent

[david.elliott]

Sounds like the macro may not be the best choice for every day carry. Guess I need to look more into the standard 50/1.8 kit, the 40/2, and the 35/2.

Thank you all for your input thus far.

[Frontman]

The 50/1.8 is the bes all-around lens. My three lens kit consists of the 21/3.5, 50/1.8, and 90/2 macro. I have tried and used the 50/1.2 and 35/2, as well as various lenses, but my keepers are the first three which I mentioned. A regular OM4 is also not a bad camera, the Ti is not a necessity.

[Trius]

^^ Of the three lenses listed, I personally would opt for the 40/2 unless I really wanted the somewhat wider FOV of the 35. None of those lenses are slouches, especially if the 50/1.8 is the late miJ version.

The 40/2, however, is so compact, that it best fits the bill for carry-around, all-day outings.

[ferider]

Even though I'm an OM fan, frankly, your Leicaflex and cron are optically as good as anything you can get from Olympus.

Compared to your 'flex, the only strengths of the OM4[T] are size and metering. My preferred 50 Zuiko (and I've tried them all, as well as the 40/2) is the late 50/1.4. Compared to a 50/2, it also gives you a much brighter viewfinder (for same speed lenses viewfinder brightness of 'flex and OM4[T] are equivalent).

Roland.

[david.elliott]

Yeah, my leicaflex doesn't meter with the cron. It is 3 cam only. So, there is that to consider. But, more importantly, it is too heavy for my girlfriend to carry around along with all the other stuff she has in her purse. I think we'll just start with an om body and a 50/1.8 lens as a relatively inexpensive, small kit and go from there. Will keep my eyes open for relatively inexpensive 50/1.4, 40/2, or 35/2 steals.

[sreed2006]

Originally Posted by david.elliott

.... Will keep my eyes open for relatively inexpensive 50/1.4, 40/2, or 35/2 steals.

lf my experience is any guide, you need to replace "or" with "and".

[david.elliott]

Ehhhh... too close in focal lengths for me to make it an 'and'.

Though, I could see myself ending up with a 50/1.4, 21mm, and 85mm...

[Shutterspark]

The 85mm f2 is a great lens for portraits.

My lineup consists of a 50/2 looking pretty on my shelf next to the 300/4 for when I need them, the 50/1.8 on the camera and a 85/2 and 21/2.8 in each pocket.
In my case there's also nice radioactive 58/1.2 on the shelf in all it's yellow/gold glory.

[FTography]

Originally Posted by david.elliott

Sounds like the macro may not be the best choice for every day carry. Guess I need to look more into the standard 50/1.8 kit, the 40/2, and the 35/2.

The 35/2.0 is not particularly small - for a Zuiko that is. Both 40/2.0 and 50/1.8 are fantastic. Especially the latter with its great value for money.

Originally Posted by Trius

^^ Of the three lenses listed, I personally would opt for the 40/2 unless I really wanted the somewhat wider FOV of the 35. None of those lenses are slouches, especially if the 50/1.8 is the late miJ version.
The 40/2, however, is so compact, that it best fits the bill for carry-around, all-day outings.

Nothing really to add here. I too find the 40/2.0 to be the best all-around "one for all" OM Zuiko.

Originally Posted by Shutterspark

... and 21/2.8 in each pocket.
In my case there's also nice radioactive 58/1.2 on the shelf in all it's yellow/gold glory.

I did not know there was a 2.8 version of the 21mm. Can you confirm that it is indeed a 2.8? So far I have only been aware of the 21/2.0 and 21/3.5.

And I think you might be talking about the 55/1.2 concerning your radioactive lens.

[Shutterspark]

Ah, forgot to mention my 28mm isn't a Zuiko, it's a Vivitar/Komine.

You caught me with the 55mm too, I was thinking of the Minolta.

I need to start shooting with this kit again.

[Trius]

21/2, 40/2 & 85/2 would be just about a perfect kit. The 21/2, while not as small as other Zuikos, is not huge, and is quite comfortable and easy to use. If someone told me I had to dispose of all my Zuikos save one, it might well be the 21/2.

[flip]

Originally Posted by FrankS

I found the OM4's metering too complex and fiddly for my needs. (Not complex in the sense that I couldn't understand it.) i know that one doesn't need to use the spot metering and highlight/shadow buttons, but then one could just use an OM2n with an even better viewfinder.

The automatic mirror raising in timer mode might be useful for those doing macro. (Something the OM-2 cannot do.) Really, that's my reason for having any OM equipment: to do what I cannot do better and lighter with an RF.

I just got my 50/2 - no way would I carry this in the same bag with the 21/2 and 90/2. Too much glass. It's a commitment to a two lens day for me.

[Igor.Burshteyn]

Originally Posted by david.elliott

om4t and 50/2 macro lens

I own both. Combination is a little bit nose heavy but you need to be Olympus OM (or leica) user to note that
50 f2 macro is sharp but even more important it combines sharpness and really good bokeh. I almost never use it as a macro lens but it's permanently attached to the OM4ti as my normal standard lens.
The only drawback is a really long focusing throw, and most of a throw is in the macro range. You will need to try that yourself, just to see if you are able to focus it reliably on normal distances.