Best 50/55/60 mm macro's?

[caspert79]

Using a 55/2.8 Vivitar Macro at the moment, I'm curious to test some other MF macro's in the 50/55/60mm range. What do you think are the best ones?

[asterinex]

Fuji X-E1 and Olympus OM Macro 50mm f3.5 no pp

[calvin83]

Tried vivitar 55/2.8 and Tomioka 60/2.8. The Tomioka is far better than the vivitar. I of the best will be the S-Planars and the new Makro-Planars which I never tried.

[SonicScot]

My vote goes to the Nikon Micro 55/3.5, one of the sharpest lenses I've ever seen.

[caspert79]

What about the macro Takumars, any experience with those?

[SonicScot]

[Aanything]

I have had the super takumar 4/50, and the Mamiya Macro Sekor 2.8/60 (which should be made by tomioka), and here too, the mamiya wins hands down (besides going natively to 1:1).
I also like it very much for non-macro use.

Here's a couple of samples:





and some more here

[simbon4o]

This tomioka looks very nice. I have the Micro 55 2.8 AIS - great lens!!! The sharpest 2.8-5.6 lens ever tried and seen! Also have very nice smooth defocus and astonishing contrast and colors!

[Jeff Zen]

I bought the 55/2.8 Vivitar Macro in PK mount for K20D and thought it was pretty mediocre so I sold it. Then recently I bought another one in Konica AR mount for use on NEX and it is wonderful.
It doesn't even seem like the same lens. I don't know if this is due to copy variation or maybe it just works better in the Konica mount on the NEX.

The SMC Macro-Takumar 50mm f4 is slow but is much more compact and has much nicer bokeh than your vivitar. It also has a auto/manual switch. It's 1:2 though. I think it's a great lens.

[Nordentro]

[donald dump]

Short manual macros I´ve tried are om zuiko 50, vivitar 55/2.8 komine, md-rokkor 50, yashica 50/4, hexanon 55/3.5. I liked hexanon is really something, but vivitar is not bad either. Ok, all are very good, but those two were mostly used.

[Lightshow]

I like my Canon FD SSC 50/3.5 its quite good.
Both OM's are real good, the Nikkor has a good reputation, I really like what I've seen from the Topcor 58/3.5

[caspert79]

I think I'll go for the Nikkor 55/3.5. It's easy to find one, and prices are reasonable. And apparently a solid performer.

[WolverineX]

here you have samples i made with my macro lenses in 50-60mm range:
http://forum.mflenses.com/wolverinex-testing-my-lenses-series-link-list-t39524.html

following lenses are there:
EBC Fujinon macro 55mm/3.5,
Industar 61 L/Z 50mm/2.8,
Macro Takumar 50mm/4, (1:1)
Super Macro Takumar 50mm/4,
MC Macro Rokkor-QF 50mm/3.5,
Micro-Nikkor 55mm 3.5,
Olympus 50mm/2 macro,
Olympus 50mm/3.5 macro,
Panagor 55mm 2.8 macro, (1:1, same as vivitar 55mm/2.
Volna-9 50mm/2.8,
Yashinon Tomioka 60mm 2.8 (1:1)

[cooltouch]

Years ago, when I shot Canon FD exclusively, I liked my FD 50/3.5 a lot, but I didn't have anything to compare it to then. Now I have a 55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor, which I have compared to other macro lenses and my conclusion is that the old Pre-AI 55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor is a superbly sharp optic.

I compared it to the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 and the legendary Vivitar 105mm f'2.5 made by Kiron. It easily bettered the much vaunted Kiron-built Vivitar, and hung tough with the Tamron 90, which is another amazingly sharp lens.

I use my 55mm Micro Nikkor for duplicating slides with my SLR and I am satisfied that I'm getting image quality that surpasses my Camera's sensor's ability to collect information.

This is a 100% crop of an image I took with my EOS XS (1000D) @ 10.1mp. Click on it to see it full-size. The camera had been set to ISO 400, which is very noisy for this camera, so other than cropping, the only post processing I did was to run PSP's "One Step Noise Removal" routine on the image. Sometimes this reduces sharpness, but it doesn't seem to have affected the image this time. Note the delicate extensions these flowers shoot out, located in the bottom right quadrant of the image.


The next two images are engravings on the face of an old Zippo lighter that my father carried in Korea during the conflict there. They are 100% crops. I did not attempt to keep the crops within 1600 pixels, but the forums's software resized the images so they're okay for viewing. Click on them to see them full size. These two images were taken with the same EOS DSLR, but the ISO was set to 100, so all I did to them was crop. Note the tiny, invisible to the naked eye scratches and chips in the metal that this lens reveals. The 55 Micro Nikkor was set to f/8 for these two images, I don't recall what it was set to for the one of the flowers.



One of the great things about this lens is that the old ones like mine can often be found on eBay for really good prices. More bang for the buck than any other lens I can think of.

[mfkita]

Nikon makes great micro lenses....I've had both 55s (2.8/3.5) and would highly recommend both (with the warning that they do have issues with drying focusing lubricant)....

I ended up with the 60/2.8 AF-D Nikkor only because it came to me cheap with no AF and thus not easily "flipable' ...surprisingly the focusing is very smooth, and I like that it's a bit larger than the 55s....and it's plenty sharp...okay it's not MF, but it works great as one.

[sceptic]

Another vote for the micro-Nikkor (55 2.8 in my case). Sharp even for a macro lens, with great bokeh (which I think is very important). I compared it to a Canon FL 50 3.5 macro, which didn't stand a chance. Sharpness, contrast and color saturation were all better with the Nikkor. It even runs close with my Vivitar Series 1 90 2.5, which is no small task... If anything, the Nikkor beats the Vivitar on flare resistance. I can not recommend the micro-Nikkor highly enough. It's one of very few of my lenses I will never part with.

[RAART]

I have OM 50mm F3.5 Macro + all OM ext. tubes (3pcs) and Tamron 90mm F2.5 52BB + Tamron ext. tube to 1:1 which goes with 90mm and been highly satisfied with both of them. They are very sharp lenses with lovely colors/rendering. Didn't feel a need for another macro lens. Do not know if you can get any better then those two unless you are willing to spend $$$$ and even then differences are not marginal.

Highly recommended.

[hoanpham]

What about Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 ? Any experience?

I am prefer 100mm macro range or longer or anything enlarger more than 1:1.
100mm 1:1 with 2x, 200mm with 2x, tubes, 20mm reverse... flash ok.

[caspert79]

Thanks a lot guys, plenty of useful information!

[Pontus]

I tested a few short macros. I think most macro lenses are good enough.

http://forum.mflenses.com/4-short-macro-lenses-compared-t59655,highlight,+macro++lenses.html

[Pontus]

I tested a few short macros. I think most macro lenses are good enough.

http://forum.mflenses.com/4-short-macro-lenses-compared-t59655,highlight,+macro++lenses.html

[martinsmith99]

I've got the pre AI Micro Nikkor 55/3.5 and it's pretty good. I wouldn't say amazing and it's only 1:2 reproduction, so not really a macro lens.

[iangreenhalgh1]

[Excalibur]

The Vivitar 55mm f2.8 Macro is good on film...... and it's worth remembering;- as 99.9% of 35mm film shots shown here are low scan, you should get better detailed results on a good digital camera.

F16 aperture Kodak gold


Probably f5.6, Kodak gold