So, a quick and fun little comparison for today. I have the new Sony FE 90mm f/2.8 Macro in for review this week, and should have that review up in the next few days. So with one excellent macro lens in for review, I thought it would be fun to do a very quick and down and dirty comparison of this lens with the two macro lenses I own: the Fuji 60mm f/2.4 and the Olympus 60mm f/2.8. Both are good, and the Olympus, mounted on my E-M5, is my personal go-to rig for macro shooting: it’s very small, light, has outstanding stabilization and brilliant optics. So, how do the others compare? Let’s find out.
The Lenses
These macro lenses are all native to their respective mounts and all have excellent reputations. Of course, there are differences to be had. First of all, we have different sensor formats. The Olympus 60mm is designed for the Micro 4/3 system, and such covers the 4/3 sized sensor. Since this is a 1:1 macro, it also can create the tightest framing of all the lenses. The Fuji 60mm f/2.4 is designed for the APS-C Fuji X system, and is the only macro lens in this comparison that can’t do 1:1 focusing: it maxes out at 1:2 magnification. The Sony 90mm f/2.8 is a full-frame lens that can be used on both the A7 series of cameras as well as Sony’s APS-C line of E-mount cameras. I tested the Fuji using the X-E2, the Olympus using the OM-D E-M5 and the Sony using both the A7 II and a6000.
Because of the different formats, the lenses also have differing fields of view for normal shooting. The Olympus 60mm has the same field of view as a 120mm lens on Full Frame, while the Fuji 60mm matches the Sony 90mm’s field of view. The Sony 90mm on the APS-C cameras has a 135mm equivalent field of view. For macro shooting, it doesn’t matter all that much. For the same image height, the Olympus will have the longest working distance due to its shorter length, with the 90mm on APS-C coming very closely behind…the 90 on full frame has the shortest working distance due to the length of the lens.
The Test
I only had time to run a quick test, and so I performed the test with all lenses producing essentially the same framing. This is 1:2 magnification on the Fuji, 1:2 on the a6000/90mm, around 1:2.6 on the Olympus and approximately 1:1.3 on the A7II/90mm set. I set the cameras up on a tripod, focused manually with magnified view and used 2 second self timer to eliminate any residual shake. I then resized the Sony files to 16 megapixels to try to normalize resolution between the cameras. Obviously, the Sony cameras will be capable of slightly higher resolution due to their 24 megapixel sensors.
Next I took a quick look into the corners. I’m looking only at f/2.8 and f/8 here, and you can see that the Fuji is again last at f/2.8, while the Olympus and Sony are again very close. At f/8, all the lenses look quite similar, with the Sony having a very slight edge in the corner. This is the case on both full-frame and APS-C, which tells me that the Sony will likely look great even at 100% on the ultra-high resolution A7R II.
That was fun, Jordan. I have the EM1 plus 60mm macro and I have a Sony a6000. I keep admiring the 90mm Sony. How does it feel on your a6000? Seems it has the potential to be quite unbalanced. On the other hand I am using an old Nikkor 105mm micro with adapter (total weight 20.5 ounces and 5.5″ long at max) on the a6000 and it feels fine. —Peter F.
It is rather huge on the a6000. It’s really rather big on the A7II as well. I’ve gotten some fantastic images with it this past week, but honestly, o much prefer using the E-M5 and Oly 60 because of the handling.
Thanks, Jordon. I’m guessing you’ve got your eye on the new Fuji 90mm macro!! It’s smaller that the Sony for sure, and …wow… that F2 aperture.
Peter F.
The new Fuji 90 isn’t a macro lens. It fills the classic tight portrait lens, akin to a 135mm on full frame.
And…my review sample arrives tomorrow, so I am excited to put it through the gauntlet.
thanks alot for this comparison!
If you add the non macro Sigma 60/2.8 + electronic macro tubes on the A6000, you may get the most of it for the least of it 😉
I take a lot of studio based macro shots. From this review I can’t really claim to have learn’t anything. perhaps a proper test with a resolution test Target ( USAF 1951 High res) would have been useful. BTW some of us would not call 1-2 “Macro”. despite the labeling by the manufacturer.
Even this “dirty” approach is most interesting – but I’m afraid I cant quite deduce the answer to my coming task,
with my current background knowledge – for instance how does this Olympus 50 fear with the 80mm 1:1 ?
(I am totally stranger to the excellent Olympus gear.)
I ask this because someone recommends me to find such an zuiko 80mm 1:1
(but intended for onto my Sony A7RII – I guess I would need also a bellow and bayonett-adapter),
‘instead’ of the Sony 90mm Macro (with an extention-tube?)
– and I wonder if this recommendation was for financial consideration or qualitative observation.
I intend to reproduce B&W big-grain 24x36mm (12mm ‘framing’) negatives
to be (extensively photoshopped and) printed in “museum quality” to about A2 size ( aprox 60cm) .
(still others recommend (old) enlager-lenses, some are designed for 1:1)
Thank You !
excellent blog post… thanks for your efforts 🙂