Curious whether people where going to wait to see what the Oly 50mm MFT macro looks like, or go for the 45mm portrait earlier? Of course, I cannot find any real information on this alleged Oly 50mm macro. The FT Rumors site posted a roadmap in July, which shows a MFT macro in the 50mm range, but it does not show the 45mm portrait. Hmmmm... 43 Rumors | Blog | (FT4) Olympus 50mm macro lens for Micro Four Thirds coming by end of the year!
That chart either doesn't show the 45mm f1.8 at all and there's a whole new lens coming.- or the 45 is the 50 (but not macro). Am I missing something?
I'm struggling with this myself. I like the new 45mm, but if the 50mm macro is due out soon, i might just wait.
If you really want a 50mm macro, why not use the Four-Thirds version? We all know how incredibly sharp it is, and autofocus won't get much faster on a macro lens if you change the mount. It'll still be a macro lens with long focus travel. I'd get the 45mm f/1.8 if you want a nice fast 50mm general-purpose prime with fast AF, or get the Four-Thirds Zuiko 50mm f/2 macro if you need a sharp macro lens with mediocre AF.
I like everything about the 45/1.8 except for the complete lack of macro capabilities. I will definitely be waiting for the Oly. HOpefully it will come in at $400 like the 4/3rds version and hopefully it will be as fast and as sharp(and with MSC focusing). Of course, none of this matters if it ends up costing as much as the Leica.
Yes, that's what I'm worried about. The 12mm is on there, so obviously the 45mm would be the other lens "due out in spring". I am actually quite disappointed in the complete lack of macro lenses in Olys lineup. None of them even do fake macro. 1:4 is as close as you're going to get.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that macro is already out. It's this: https://us.buyolympus.com/accessori...nversion-lenses/macro-converter-mcon-p01.html If you notice the other 2 spring 2011 "lenses", they're also converters. If you want a macro lens with AF, I second the ZD 50mm f/2 recommendation. As a bonus, it makes for a very nice portrait lens too (if you're willing to MF). Note that the timeline in the link does not mention the 45mm NOR the 12mm lens...
So how bad is the AF on it? Compare it to the mz 14-42mm on an EPL1/2/EP2. Is it good for macro focusing but bad for other things, or what? Is it just slow or is it going to be entirely useless for AF at far away things? And how does it AF on f4/3rds cameras? Is it worth investing in this kind of glass? Buying something like the "E50" in the future isn't out of the question for me, but is there even a future for f4/3rds anymore?
That's what I was kind of thinking. The chart does show the 12mm, but only one entry in the 50mm-ish range. In the 43 Rumors post, they mention their source said that the 50mm Macro was pushed back to allow for the 45mm f1.8 to have time on the market alone. That would make sense from a sales perspective, but wouldn't you still have both on the roadmap? Oh well, guess I will stick with my PL 45mm for a while longer. It has been growing on me!
Man, I hope you aren't right, but converters could turn into lenses for the purposes of an investor presentation aka dog and pony show.
I wish I was wrong, but all three of those were tagged as Spring 2011 release. Well those 3 converters were released during that time. Take that for what you will. If you want a native macro lens, the Panny 45/2.8 is a good (albeit $$$$$) option. With regards to the ZD 50/2, AF will take 1-2 seconds. Due to the lack of limiter, the lens will occasionally totally bork focus and go through it's full range looking to lock on. This turns the time into 3+ seconds. For candids, the autofocus of the 50 on m43 bodies is pretty much useless. For studio shots or planned shots where your subject can be patient, it's ok. I don't know about the lens' performance on 43 bodies but I assume it's much better (it is after all, a PDAF lens). I very much look forward to the native 45 with fast AF.
I don't think anyone doubts that, but I don't have that kind of money, and a 50/2 would be more versatile. If it exists.
Because it's a big lens that needs a Four Thirds adapter. I'd much rather have a native M43 lens, with its smaller packaging and better CDAF. In fact, the Panasonic 45 macro is pretty much what I want (internal focus is VERY useful for us macro shooters who use off-camera flash extensively), but the price is very high. I'm hoping Oly will give us a 50/2 macro with internal focus for a lower price tag than the Panasonic lens. A long shot, I know, but I won't buy the 45/1.8 until I see what Oly is going to do for their macro lens. In other news, someone needs to make an extension tube for M43. I wonder if you could turn a M43/43 adapter into an extension tube easily? (hmmmmmm....)
I have the 50mm 4/3 lens and it is a wonderful lens, the images are superb however it is very slow focusing. I will definitely be getting the 45mm 1.8 just for the fast autofocus and I think it will be more useful being just that little bit wider. I don't do much macro work so I will probably end up selling my 50mm when the 45mm arrives.
I could buy a Four Thirds tube and do camera -> Four Thirds adapter -> tube -> macro lens. But you can't mount two adapters together; M43 and Four Thirds have different bayonet mounts. Right now the macro possibilities are: 1) Buy the 45/2.8 2) Buy the macro add-on lens from Olympus 3) Buy a diopter to fit one of your telephotos 4) Adapt a lens from a different mount (Four Thirds or otherwise) 5) Wait for Oly/Panny to make tubes or Oly to make their macro lens I've chosen #5, but I'm not a patient person.
If you only use macro occasionally, a screw-in close-up filter for the 45/1.8 might get you the best of both worlds. Filter thread is small, so filter should be quite inexpensive. The 50/2 is only worth it if you do mainly macro and don't care about AF. It's an incredibly frustrating lens on m4/3 if you try and use the AF. Very slow and when it does finally lock, it isn't always accurate. Cheers, DH
