OM, I've become a Zuikoholic!

[FrankS]

Selling all my Olympus SLR gear! Love it, but I'm too invested in Nikon and I don't need a whole second 35mm SLR system. Check the classifies here.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by FrankS

Selling all my Olympus SLR gear! Love it, but I'm too invested in Nikon and I don't need a whole second 35mm SLR system. Check the classifies here.

Yep, that's what I had to do some time ago to my Minolta MD "collection"
There is such a thing as having too many SLR systems.

[maitani]

I'm selling one of my OM-3 in the classifieds, those don't pop up often.. So i thought i ll let you know

regards
maitani

[julescasablancas]

Taken with my G.Zuiko 50mm 1.4 and my OM2n (which is sold to make way for OM4t black)


Unfortunately, that lens has a crippled diaphragm blade just last week

[Ken Ford]

My little pile of Zuikos has gotten a new lease on life since I picked up a NEX-7 - the combination really works well. I'm actually considering adding to the stable! My 24/2.8 in particular is great on this body:



A fast 50 in particular would be tasty, especially since my Nikkor 50/1.2 on a NEX adapter is a behemoth on the NEX. My Zuiko 50/1.8 MIJ is doing just fine for the moment, though!

[Trius]

Ken: I may have an extra 50/1.4 I could part with. Let me dig a bit.

[Ken Ford]

Please let me know - I could be very interested!

[Trius]

OM 35/2.8 K64

[Trius]

OM-1 100/2.8 Kodachrome 1977
Bruce Cockburn

[paulfish4570]

that is a well-preserved 'chrome shot ...

[paulfish4570]

i think i know now why i like my zuiko 50/1.8 so much: it renders like an elmar 50/2.8 i had 30-plus years ago, but with a little more speed.

[CVickery]

Originally Posted by Trius

OM-1 100/2.8 Kodachrome 1977
Bruce Cockburn

...

Nice shot ... I was a big fan of Bruce in that era, and I just picked up a OM1 with 100/2.8 combo from FrankS on the B&S

[julescasablancas]

Originally Posted by Trius

OM 35/2.8 K64

Love the colors!
Is there any modern slide film that is close to the K64 in character?

[Trius]

Paul: All my Kodachromes seem to have withstood the test of time despite, shall we say "uneven" storage conditions.

Also, I really like your observation about the 50/1.8 ... not having had an Elmar, I wouldn't have noticed that, but I think you are onto something. Different optical formulas, but I think the looks are similar. My favourite normal is the Rollei Tessar 40/2.8, which I think epitomizes that look.

CVickery: Seek out a Cockburn concert and shoot with that rig! FrankS is a good friend of mine, so I'm glad you two connected. I've seen Bruce three times, all in different decades; the last time was in Brampton.

Jules: I'm not sure. I never shot with much other than Kodachrome, Ektachrome and Agfachrome; the Fuji stuff never did much for me, except for Astia, which is different from Kodachrome.

Thanks, everyone ... one more Kodachrome/OM shot below ...

[Trius]

OM 100/2.8 (I think) Kodachrome

[redisburning]

if you don't have a 50/3.5 macro I highly suggest you purchase one.

it is very rare for a person as picky and fickle as me to find something I can say is unequivocally amazing. I treat this lens like it only works at f5.6 and am NEVER disappointed by the results.

this is one of a handful of OM lenses that I have bought myself, rather than having been gifted. but this would be the last to go.

I'm going to develop a roll of the same film I used my ZM50 on. I will update the thread with my thoughts. I have mentally prepared myself to accept that the Zuiko may be a superior lens, both technically and stylistically. We shall see. I now have my own scanner, I haven't seen much of the Planar on t-grained film, so this is only a guess (fear). Until then, here are my two favorite shots from the roll:


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

my only complaint is that I still cannot focus an SLR with the same accuracy as a RF, and these shots were the result of me taking a very, very long time on each shot.

oh, and excellent shots everyone! I love to see Kodachrome. Unfortunately I missed the boat on that one; I started taking photographs very shortly after Dwayne's discontinued processing.

[Trius]

I have been given two 50/3.5s, sold one to Gene W. I will confess I haven't used it much, but I should. The person who gave them to me used the 50/3.5 a lot. I promise I'll do better!

[CTAPbIU_XPEH_RUSSIA]

Olympus Zuiko 35/2.8 at 8-11

All series
http://www.flickr.com/photos/6244139...th/6946471906/

[redisburning]

well a promise is a promise.

I can say at this point that my Scan Dual 3 does not have a high enough resolution to tell which lens has more resolution in lp/mm.

But, I think this speaks fairly highly to the little Zuiko. It is more than capable of making razor sharp negatives.

So, the ZM Planar offers you 2 more usable stops (2.8 and 4; the Zuiko IMO should be shot only at f5.6 unless you need the extra depth of field that f8 offers) and it's emergency aperture is about 3 stops faster. It also can be bought new (for a reasonable price in the realm of new lenses, I might add), is an M mount lens and offers more modern coatings.

The Zuiko is much, much less expensive and focuses very close.

Now to the more subjective things. The Zuiko has a different kind of rendering than any other lens I've ever owned. Where I think it excels the most is when you capture the ground and see the picture drift into and then out of the plane of best focus. example here:


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

the ZM is more of a general purpose lens IMO, and there it cannot be faulted. I had originally mistook the Zuiko's special look, which I like but understand others may not, as being some sign of general quality. Rather than that, it is a unique little gem. And for the 135 dollars I paid for an EX+ condition copy from KEH, I would RUN to get one just to have it in your bag when what it does is exactly what you want.

here is the closest picture I got on the roll to what I had done with the Zuiko. you tell me which you like better:


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

[paulfish4570]

they look dandy to me ...

[philosomatographer]

Originally Posted by redisburning

So, the ZM Planar offers you 2 more usable stops (2.8 and 4; the Zuiko IMO should be shot only at f5.6 unless you need the extra depth of field that f8 offers) and it's emergency aperture is about 3 stops faster

Hi,

Thanks for posting these results here - the Zuiko 50/3.5 is a fine lens indeed.

Without possessing any equipment to differentiate between the resolution of these two fine 50mm lenses, I find it a bit odd (arrogant?) for you to assert that the f/2.0 aperture of the ZM Planar, one of the finest lenses created, is an "emergency" aperture. On what do you base this?

You should learn to optically print your negatives - not only will this bring you great joy compared to scanning, you might then more accurately be able to make statements about lens performance, without all the troubles caused by scanning (which range from focus issues, uneven performance over scanner image field, massive exaggeration of film grain due to aliasing, etc).

Of course, you may just find (as most others have) that apart from minor character differences, just about all 50mm lenses have the same perfect performance at moderate apertures, and stop worrying about it :-) Other things, such as style of camera + focusing accuracy, and utility (close-focusing) make a much bigger difference.

Enjoy!

[redisburning]

I have in the past optically printed when I was still enrolled at a university. I currently own an enlarger, I just don't have the lenses for it.

the reason I say f2 is an emergency aperture is that I live in Texas where even with 100 speed film I can shoot at any aperture I want and still get easily hand-holdable shutter speeds. Since f4 is better than f2, I don't see much of a reason to shoot at f2. It's just like the Zuiko at 3.5. It's not bad. It's not the same as a first generation f1.2 at max aperture, so maybe emergency is too strong a word for it.

and I have actually paid for higher res scans with the Planar and shots at f2 were just fine (in fact, they were the best pictures I took that trip) but honestly if I could have stopped down I would have liked too. I just like 50s at mid apertures the best. I would share them, but theyre pictures of my family and I have reservations about doing so.

[philosomatographer]

Originally Posted by redisburning

the reason I say f2 is an emergency aperture is that I live in Texas where even with 100 speed film I can shoot at any aperture I want and still get easily hand-holdable shutter speeds. Since f4 is better than f2, I don't see much of a reason to shoot at f2. It's just like the Zuiko at 3.5. It's not bad. It's not the same as a first generation f1.2 at max aperture, so maybe emergency is too strong a word for it.

Ah, well, I just wanted to clear that up - f/2.0 on the Zuiko 21mm f/2.0, for example, is an "emergency aperture" because it's plagued with severe optical aberrations at that aperture. The ZM planar is nearly optically perfect at every aperture, so a different word is indeed in order

[Jared]

OM1 - OM 28mm 3.5

[redisburning]

you should post more, the work on your site is excellent. that picture is nice too.