OM, I've become a Zuikoholic! - Page 3

Trius · 10-08-2009

Chris will be along any moment to comment about the ugly bokeh of the 50/1.8.

pggunn · 10-08-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trius

Chris will be along any moment to comment about the ugly bokeh of the 50/1.8.

Ha, you're probably right! I've read some of his posts on that topic, but I guess I'd rather have ugly bokeh than no bokeh at all!

Besides, that's kind of the way I see the world these days. I need to have my prescription filled!

Chriscrawfordphoto · 10-08-2009

That 50/1.8 sure has awful ugly bokeh.

pggunn · 10-09-2009

Hi Chris. Sorry about that. Didn't mean to hurt your eyes. Next time I'll use the 50/1.4 or stop down.

Take care.

Keith · 10-09-2009

One thing I've noticed about my Zuiko 50mm 1.4 early version, and I'm sure Chris or possibly Roland can elaborate here, is the marked difference between how it sees the world at f1.4 compared to f2! It's like two different lenses ... extremely soft wide open but stop it down to f2 and bingo ... quite sharp! Oddly this behaviour seems far less apparent when shooting at close to it's minimum focusing capability!

Was this a major design short coming in the early lens or was it something they always factored into it's design ... what did they do wth subsequent versions to overcome this?

ruby.monkey · 10-09-2009

Curses. Now I have to break out both silver- and black-nose 50mm f/1.4s to find out. And I'd been looking forward to test-driving my new 100mm f/2.8. Damn you, Keith!

Trius · 10-09-2009

Thanks, Chris for surprising us.

I have put the 50/1.4 (600xxx range) away for awhile in favour of the 50/1.8 miJ. In addition to being Chris-contrarian, I felt I wanted to reaquaint myself with it, plus enjoy the smaller size.

Keith · 10-09-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by ruby.monkey

Curses. Now I have to break out both silver- and black-nose 50mm f/1.4s to find out. And I'd been looking forward to test-driving my new 100mm f/2.8. Damn you, Keith!

LOL ... I don't mind it's softness at 1.4 because it really is superb at f2 ... I rate it as one of the best 50mm lenses I own for black and white shooting.

When I want real speed and bokeh to make my head spin ... I pick up my 50mm 1.2!

shadowfox · 10-09-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankS

So, how much are you willing to drop on a 135 f3.5?

I assume you're asking me.

Not too much, Frank, certainly not worth the shipping cost to Texas from Canada.

That's why I still haven't had it to this day, I'm too cheap to spring for one outright

I'll keep looking for local kits for sale.

shadowfox · 10-09-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by coelacanth

Great image, shadowfox. Here is another "modern japanesey" stuff from a Kissaten in SF. It's also from 85/2 (version 2).

Nice, Sug.

I often wonder why people say that this lens is not sharp, I've never had any problems getting pictures at f/2 that are sometimes too sharp (pores look great on a guy's portrait, but don't even bring that up to a lady

)

philosomatographer · 10-09-2009

Don't forget the amazing, amazing Macro glass in this system.

I have been shooting an OM-1n for about a year now as my exclusive small-format system, and recently was the kind recipient of a mint OM-2n, both of which are wonderful cameras: Jewel-like in their beauty, but purpose-made tools.

20/3.5 @ 15x magnification @ f/16 = strong diffraction at this aperture, but what the heck (OM-2n, natural light):

90mm f/2.0 @ f/11 (OM-1n, natural light):

Both on FP4, scanned silver-gelatin prints. In my opinion, the 90/2.0 s the be-all-end-all of 35mm SLR lenses to date. Not because it's the best (sharpest, most flare-free, etc) lens ever, but because of the "character" of the lens. Leica "glow"? Bah!

Church of Maitani, eh?

oscroft · 10-09-2009

Quote:

I think last count I was up to three OM bodies and eleven lenses

Hmm, I did a count recently, and it's 5 bodies (OM1n, 3xOM2n, OM4T), and 13 lenses - and they all get used.

ColinW · 10-09-2009

Quote:

I rate it as one of the best 50mm lenses I own for black and white shooting.

I'll second that Keith.

Quote:

That 50/1.8 sure has awful ugly bokeh

Chris, I know your feelings on this (you may have mentioned it before

), but let's be honest, is there such a thing as a bad Zuiko? Whoops, maybe should have started a new thread with that one!

Chriscrawfordphoto · 10-09-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by pggunn

Hi Chris. Sorry about that. Didn't mean to hurt your eyes. Next time I'll use the 50/1.4 or stop down.

Take care.

Gregor,

When I posted that post about the 1.8 having ugly bokeh I wasn't paying attention. I didn't notice that earlier you had put one of your pics up from that lens.

So, that wasn't directed at you. LOL I saw Trius's post saying I'd be around soon to complain about the 50/1.8 bokeh so I obliged him by complaining

coelacanth · 10-09-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowfox

Nice, Sug.

I often wonder why people say that this lens is not sharp, I've never had any problems getting pictures at f/2 that are sometimes too sharp (pores look great on a guy's portrait, but don't even bring that up to a lady

)

Hey thanks Will.

Yeah, I've never had problem with my 85/2. The beauty of this lens is that it shows softness if you shoot soft things while it beautifully renders sold stuff from wide open as well.

To prove point, here is another 85/2 wide open shot from my friends' wedding last week.

pggunn · 10-09-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

Gregor,

When I posted that post about the 1.8 having ugly bokeh I wasn't paying attention. I didn't notice that earlier you had put one of your pics up from that lens.

So, that wasn't directed at you. LOL I saw Trius's post saying I'd be around soon to complain about the 50/1.8 bokeh so I obliged him by complaining

No problems! I do have a sense of humor,

and like I said before, that's not what I consider a great picture by any means - just demonstrating that at least the camera works very well even though the photographer might not always!

pggunn · 10-09-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith

One thing I've noticed about my Zuiko 50mm 1.4 early version, and I'm sure Chris or possibly Roland can elaborate here, is the marked difference between how it sees the world at f1.4 compared to f2! It's like two different lenses ... extremely soft wide open but stop it down to f2 and bingo ... quite sharp! Oddly this behaviour seems far less apparent when shooting at close to it's minimum focusing capability!

Was this a major design short coming in the early lens or was it something they always factored into it's design ... what did they do wth subsequent versions to overcome this?

Hi Keith,

Very interesting. I'll be shooting the 50/1.4 this weekend and will make a point of comparing wide open with one stop down.

Just got a later version in the mail yesterday, serial number 1148833. It looks like it's never been used!

Enjoy your weekend.

Greg

Renzsu · 10-11-2009

Hi guys, I was just given an Oly OM-2 with a bunch of lenses and accessories. My aunt saw me shooting with my Hasselblad and M6 and mentioned that she still had a bunch of old camera gear in a drawer at home that I could have if I wanted... who am I to say no right?

There was too much to bring home in my backpack, so I just brought the OM-2 and 50 1.8 with me, but there were 3 more zooms, one Zuiko, one Vivitar and one who's name I already forgot. Also a 28 3.5 and I think a 90 2.0 macro. Also there was a bunch of filters (each lens already had filters on it, wow

), a bellow system, an enlarger for slide copying and some other things. Once I get all the stuff sorted I'll shoot a picture of it.

The OM-2 has some battery residue in the battery compartment, I got a tip that I can clean that with q-tips and clear vinegar, so I'll give that a shot before I put some new batteries in it.

philosomatographer · 10-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renzsu

...and I think a 90 2.0 macro....

Wow, if you received a gift 90/2.0, you are one very very lucky guy.

Renzsu · 10-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by philosomatographer

Wow, if you received a gift 90/2.0, you are one very very lucky guy.

Hmm yeah I just realized.. I looked it up on some online shops and

Well I'm not 100% sure, next weekend I'm going to try to pick everything up, all I know is that one of the lenses was a 90/f2.0 and I'm pretty sure it had macro on it..
I'm going to have some fun with this camera, that's I DO know

ColinW · 10-11-2009

Renzsu,

If it's the 90/f2 it's macro. Enjoy.

http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~rwe...oup/90mmf2.htm

You don't happen to have a copy of your lottery numbers for this week do you?

oscroft · 10-11-2009

Wow, yes, a 90/2 is a real gem of an acquisition.

Apparently, as well as being superb at macro distances, it's also a very good all-round short tele.

You clearly are going to be enjoying yourself with that lot

philosomatographer · 10-12-2009

Just FYI, I started a thread over at APUG on my long-term impressions of the 90/2.0 Macro, with plenty of examples (and others have also contributed), you may want to have a look:

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum52/6...pressions.html

The 90/2.0 is no mere lens, it's one of those rare examples (like most Leica M lenses) that seems to define the lens maker's art. It is simply exquisite, which is why a second-hand example of this 1980s lens costs more than a new modern ~100mm Macro with electronic image stabilisation and focus that goes to 1:1 (the 90/2.0 only magnifies to 1:2). And having both in hand, I must say that the Zuiko 90/2.0 is built far better (feels more expensive, more solid, more jewel-like) than a $3000 Schneider Super-Angulon XL 90mm f/5.6, the only other lens I own which I would classify as "exquisite" or [insert similar over-the-top hyperbole here].

Keith · 10-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by philosomatographer

Just FYI, I started a thread over at APUG on my long-term impressions of the 90/2.0 Macro, with plenty of examples (and others have also contributed), you may want to have a look:

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum52/6...pressions.html

The 90/2.0 is no mere lens, it's one of those rare examples (like most Leica M lenses) that seems to define the lens maker's art. It is simply exquisite, which is why a second-hand example of this 1980s lens costs more than a new modern ~100mm Macro with electronic image stabilisation and focus that goes to 1:1 (the 90/2.0 only magnifies to 1:2). And having both in hand, I must say that the Zuiko 90/2.0 is built far better (feels more expensive, more solid, more jewel-like) than a $3000 Schneider Super-Angulon XL 90mm f/5.6, the only other lens I own which I would classify as "exquisite" or [insert similar over-the-top hyperbole here].

Quote:

I consider myself quite lucky to have purchased my 90/2.0 for an affordable price on eBay, due to it having a small chip in one of the glass elements. Such a mark will, of course, never visibly affect the image, so I am happy, and got it for at least $500 cheaper than the going rate for mint copies.

Ok ... shock me!

What is the going price for one of these wonder lenses ... I need to know now!

philosomatographer · 10-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith

What is the going price for one of these wonder lenses ... I need to know now!

Rarity, more than price, make them difficult to acquire. They seem to go from about $800 to $1100 in the second-hand market. Not big money for a lens in absolute terms, but not cheap for a 1980s Macro as part of an obsolete system either.

Renzsu · 10-12-2009

Ugh I'm really hoping it's the 90 f/2.0 Macro now, imagine if it's a different lens haha. But, the lenses there seemed to be in great condition, filters mounted and stored in their original containers. But, I'll shut up now until I can show you guys a picture of the stuff (hopefully next weekend or so).

jesse1dog · 10-13-2009

90 f/2.0 Macro on eBay yesterday and didn't sell at £675. The seller sold a similar one for £605 about a week ago. All very temping ....

jesse

Darkhorse · 10-17-2009

Hi everyone. It's been nearly 2 months since I've really done any photography. I was going strong and things just sort of sputtered out. I processed my first roll in a while from my OM1 with some Arista Premium 400 pushed to 1600. I think I need a new reel though, the negs didn't come out looking so good all covered with emulsion in certain areas because the reel just loved to buckle.

BillBingham2 · 10-19-2009

Anyone out there have any experience with the 300/4.5?

Thanks.

B2 (;->

plummerl · 10-20-2009

The 300/4.5 is a very nice piece of glass. I use it quite frequently. For sizing, the camera on the left has the 300 mounted:

Chris101 · 10-20-2009

What is the third lens in the top row?

PatrickT · 10-20-2009

Wow, that's a lot of good looking OM equipment! That lens on the bottom right looks like a monster...what is it?

plummerl · 10-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris101

What is the third lens in the top row?

That would be my beloved Zuiko 18mm!

plummerl · 10-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatrickT

Wow, that's a lot of good looking OM equipment! That lens on the bottom right looks like a monster...what is it?

This would be my extremely beloved 100mm F2!

Just to finish off the others, upper left is the 16mm, next to it is the 21mm/F2, followed by the 18mm and a 50mm/F1.8 MIJ. Bottom row is the 300mm/F4.5, 35/F2 and the 28mm/F2.

Igor.Burshteyn · 10-20-2009

guys, you are driving auction prices up on epray

Trius · 10-21-2009

Yes, the 300/4.5 is a great lens. I have made sharp
shots handheld at low speeds where I didn't expect success. Partly dumb luck, but it's also well-balanced.

morback · 10-21-2009

You made me pickup my OM2 and compare it to the Zeiss Ikon ZM! They're about the same size/weight with 50/1.8 F-Zuiko and the C-Sonnar 50/1.5 attached...

If only I could focus SLR cameras properly...Olympus' microprisms help a lot though I have to say. Such a delicious camera, compact, quiet, accurate, just about a perfect SLR. A lot of thought and craft went into that camera.

Even though I'm supposed to have the bad 50/1.8 (no "made in japan" on the lens) it's stellar. Beautiful rendition and 3D effect...

Trius · 10-21-2009

Martin: "Bad"???? Even the softer F.Zuiko silver nose has it's charms. It has a colour/contrast balance that is wonderful for certain subjects ... viz, skintones on Kodachrome, Reala, etc.

BillBingham2 · 10-21-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by morback

...If only I could focus SLR cameras properly...Olympus' microprisms help a lot though I have to say....

You might take a look at a 1-14 screen or if you want a brighter view a 2-13. The 13 is like the 14 but has a straight split level where as the 13 is a 45 degree slant. You will need to adjust your meter for the 2-13 if you are using an OM-1/2 from what I remember reading. The 14 is like the Nikon P Screen with is my all time favorite.

B2 (;->

Spyderman · 10-21-2009

Bill, 1-13 is the standard focussing screen with horizontal split circle. Then there is 1-1 with only microprism and I believe it's 1-14 with the split circle at 45°.

There is one more screen with microprism only for long/slow lenses where the microprism doesn't darken until about f/8.

Looking at Larry's collection I'm glad I have the common 100/2.8 and not the f/2 version. I'm sure it must be great re. IQ, but the size...