Olympus and Canon 50m 3.5 macro lenses

[connloyalist]

Just curious: has anybody ever done a side by side comparison of the Olympus and Canon 50mm 3.5 macro lenses? I have the Olympus and it is a nice lens, but since it is also the only macro lens I own I don't really have anything to compare it to. Lately I have been getting deeper and deeper into Canon FD lenses, hence the question.

Regards, C.

[caspert79]

No experience with both of them. However, I do recommend the Micro Nikkor 55/3.5.

[cooltouch]

I suggest you vist Flickr (flickr.com) and do a search on each optic there. There are probably thousands of examples of photos taken with each lens.

I can provide you with some images that are scans of slides I shot with the Canon nFD 50mm f/3.5, but I've never had an opportunity to use the Olympus lens. And I don't own the Canon anymore, so I can't take any digital images with it.

There's another 50mm f/3.5 you might want to add to your list of possible considerations -- well, actually, a 55mm. The Nikkor 55mm f/3.5, whether pre-AI or AI, is really cheap these days and is one of the sharpest macros made. And the 55mm f/2.8 AIs is even sharper!

[stevemark]

The Olympus 3.5/50mm Macro was the first Macro lens to have floating elements. Like the Micro Nikkor 3.5/55mm it is a Xenotar type [5/4] construction. You may notice that Nikon chose a slightly longer focal length to improve corner resolution while Olympus went for floating elements. Topcon (also a Xenotar type [5/4] lens) chose an even longer focal length for its Topcor RE 3.5/58mm Macro - which results in a very good performance at infinity.

As with the Olympus Macro, the Canon (n)FD 3.5/50mm Macro and the Minolta MC/MD 3.5/50mm Macro were f=50mm lenses too. They had no floating elements, but [6/4] constructions to get the required performance. The Minolta is a classical Planar, the Canon a Planar / Orthometar hybrid.

Now the big question is: What do you want to shoot?

Most (all?) of these vintage "normal macro" lenses were designed mainly for reproduction purposes: Good resolution over the entire image, little distortion, and flat field especially in the range of maybe 1:10 to 1:3 or so, but still retaining an acceptable or even good performance at infinity and 1:1.

If you want to have the best possible center resolution, you may consider a 1.4/50mm lens and a bellows, maybe combined with an achromatic close-up lens (e. g. from Minolta or Leitz). Book authors close to Nikon did clearly state back in the 1970s that the Nikkor 1.4/50mm would have a better center resolution (and more distortion) when used for macro work than their 3.5/55mm Micro Nikkor!

Going back to your question - I can't help you since I don't own the Olympus. Since it is a floating focusing construction, I would expect it to be as good as contemporary 3.5/50mm / 55mm lenses, but that's simply an assumption.

I have compared quite a few f3.5 macro lenses at infinity. Not all of them are excellent at infinity, especially wide open or at f5.6.

If you look for a vintage macro lens that might better than your Olympus, the Micro Nikkor 2.8/55mm comes to my mind. Beware of two problems, though: earlier samples tend to have oily (=stuck) aperture, later ones a "frozen focus". Nikon still produces this very lens, now, in 2022!

Another lens from the mid-1980s which is even better is the Minolta AF 2.8/50mm Macro. Unlike most vintage macros it goes from infinity to 1:1 without adapter, and it has an even more sophisticated double floating focusing system (=three groups moving independently).

But then - if you love collecting Canon FD / nFD lenses: just go ahead

S

[caspert79]

[Doc Sharptail]

I have probably mentioned this before.
It does bear repeating though.
The A/I and A/I-s variants of the nikkor 55 micro seem to be susceptible to fungus, at least around here.
I have now examined 5 of these at the used retail level, and all have had fungus on the inside of the outermost rear element.
Just something to watch for if one goes this route...
A clean copy of the 2.8 A/I micro certainly is very, very sharp- a bit sharper than my factory A/I'd 55 micro 3.5 p.c.
I would hang on to any normal lenses at hand though.
The micro-nikkor series was primarily designed for close up work, and it does show a bit at infinity.

-D.S.

[eggplant]

Noone mentioned enlarger lenses? Far cheaper than anything else mentioned here, provided you're okay with bellows.

[jamaeolus]

I have the Olympus and I really like it. I had the FD but sold it as the FD bayonets are PITA on non Canon gear. I never compared them side by side but the Oly is one of my favorite normal range macros. But I have to confess a love for Oly glass. I snagged a copy of their bellows 38mm 2.8 for less than $200 and it is absolutely amazing glass. Neither are very expensive. Buy and try. If you don't like it, sell it again.