Showcase Olympus 50mm f/2 Zuiko OM Auto-Macro

MAubrey

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
1,029
Location
Bellingham, WA (displaced Canadian)
Real Name
Mike
The definition of "magnification ratio" is the ratio between the size of the image projected on sensor/film, and the real size. It's an optical attribute of the lens. And should remain constant no matter what sensor is used. Think about it this way, will the max magnification ratio change if you move a magnifying glass around? Another example, take a specific macro lens, at max magnification, take a picture of a grain of rice, will the size of projected image size change because sensor size changes?

So, talking about equivalence of "max magnification ratio" is wrong in the first place. There is no equivalence, it always remain constant.
I know all of that. But it isn't the point. It's the opposite of the point.
 

eno789

TalkEmount Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 1, 2012
Messages
779
Location
NoCal, USA
Real Name
Brian
I know all of that. But it isn't the point. It's the opposite of the point.
The point is, it is wrong, unscientific, and misleading to say a 1:2 macro lens magically becomes 1:1 macro simply because the sensor is smaller. You can say it fills the frame more, but you cannot say "1:1 macro".
 

WT21

TalkEmount Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
655
I had post #36 there, LoL.
Great to see you stick to your guns across the years!!! :)

(and post #36 is a pretty good explanation of the definition of 1:1. You can just say "post #36" next time I say "equivalence")
 

Jefenator

TalkEmount Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
914
Location
Oregon, USA
Real Name
Jeff
Ah, semantics... :rolleyes:
I found my Olympus 50/3.5 and Nikkor 55/3.5 macros to be unsatisfactory for landscape shots. And of course that maximum aperture can seem a bit workmanlike. Usable f/2, 1:2 and good at distance - what more could one ask from a 50mm! :)
 

MAubrey

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
1,029
Location
Bellingham, WA (displaced Canadian)
Real Name
Mike
The point is, it is wrong, unscientific, and misleading to say a 1:2 macro lens magically becomes 1:1 macro simply because the sensor is smaller. You can say it fills the frame more, but you cannot say "1:1 macro".
And when someone starts saying that, I'll be on your side. Relative magnification of a give print or image is a thing and it can be talked about with reference to the constant magnification of the lenses used for their respective formats.

But nobody is saying otherwise. I don't understand who you're arguing with.
 
Last edited:

MAubrey

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
1,029
Location
Bellingham, WA (displaced Canadian)
Real Name
Mike
Same photo at f/2 and then at f/4. These are both at the minimum focusing distance (1:2 magnification).

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:

MAubrey

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
1,029
Location
Bellingham, WA (displaced Canadian)
Real Name
Mike
Okay. I've given this lens a bit more attention over the past month or so:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Spring by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Blossoms by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Creeping Out by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Shadows by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Brick by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Bikes in Bellingham by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Bikes in Bellingham by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr
 

WT21

TalkEmount Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
655
Okay. I've given this lens a bit more attention over the past month or so:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Spring by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Blossoms by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Creeping Out by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Shadows by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Brick by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Bikes in Bellingham by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Bikes in Bellingham by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr
How much post processing do you find you need? When I shot this on m43, I found the contrast lacking (though the B&W was excellent). What are your thoughts on the Sony sensor?
 

MAubrey

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
1,029
Location
Bellingham, WA (displaced Canadian)
Real Name
Mike
Yeah, contrast is lower. I don't spend a lot of time on processing though. I have a LR preset that I use on import:
  • Auto tone & -100 highlights, +100 shadows
  • Strong Tone curve w/ +15 highlights, -15 shadows
Sometimes I tweet the curve highlights and shadows more than that, but it's never occurred to me until you mentioned it that it's the lens' that has low contrast since I do that for all my images on a picture by picture basis. But you're totally right when I look at the untouched RAW.
 

MAubrey

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
1,029
Location
Bellingham, WA (displaced Canadian)
Real Name
Mike
How much post processing do you find you need? When I shot this on m43, I found the contrast lacking (though the B&W was excellent). What are your thoughts on the Sony sensor?
I also had the advantage of nearly golden hour light in the bridge wall images and the more golden bicycle photograph, well, that and these ones are stopped down to f/5.6, too.
 

MAubrey

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
1,029
Location
Bellingham, WA (displaced Canadian)
Real Name
Mike
The small number of aperture blades is my only real frustration with this lens. It isn't here, but I've found that if I'm not careful, the shape of the OoF highlights can be a little distracting.

Also, I really love this poppy!
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
TalkEmount is a fan site and not associated with Sony Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2011-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom