Olympus 50mm f1.8 "Body Cap"

Gavin, I actually tell one of my friends (Canon user) about your observation above.
He told me that it's not fair to compare a zoom with a prime :)

So my question is, why then would anyone buy that "L" zoom lens? it's expensive, and it can't beat a $20 "body cap" ??
 
shadowfox said:
Gavin, I actually tell one of my friends (Canon user) about your observation above.
He told me that it's not fair to compare a zoom with a prime :)

So my question is, why then would anyone buy that "L" zoom lens? it's expensive, and it can't beat a $20 "body cap" ??
Click to expand...

If you need a zoom, it does the job. The other thing is the sharper Olympus 28mm that Gavin used won't directly mount to a Canon camera. You have to use an adapter and you lose autofocus, metering, autoexposure, automatic aperture stop down, etc. That's no problem for landscapes like Gavin did but if you're a wedding photographer or journalist it won't work well for you.

Now, Canon does make a 28mm f2.8 lens that costs a heck of a lot less than the L zoom, and it is probably better. From what I've heard though, Canon's wideangle primes aren't as sharp in the corners as the old Olympus wideangles. That, combined with the fact the Olympus lenses are easier to adapt to EOS cameras is why old Olympus OM-system wides go for such high prices on Ebay compared to similar lenses from other discontinued 35mm systems like Minolta and Canon FD.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
If you need a zoom, it does the job. The other thing is the sharper Olympus 28mm that Gavin used won't directly mount to a Canon camera. You have to use an adapter and you lose autofocus, metering, autoexposure, automatic aperture stop down, etc. That's no problem for landscapes like Gavin did but if you're a wedding photographer or journalist it won't work well for you.
Click to expand...

Ironically, probably the best primes out there (new ones from Zeiss) are still manual focus, they even tell customers to install third party focusing screens on DSLRs.

It's hard for me to believe that wedding photographers/journalists won't use those lenses just because it's manual focus. :)
 
shadowfox said:
Ironically, probably the best primes out there (new ones from Zeiss) are still manual focus, they even tell customers to install third party focusing screens on DSLRs.

It's hard for me to believe that wedding photographers/journalists won't use those lenses just because it's manual focus. :)
Click to expand...

Manual focus isn't the problem. I use Olympus OM cameras and a Mamiya 645 constantly, and they're manual only focus. The problem is losing auto-aperture, metering, etc. Those things really slow you down when you don't have them.
 
Yeah, using a handheld meter, setting aperture & shutter speed is just too tiring. Makes you wonder how weddings were ever done before auto/digital/etc. How did the photographer at my wedding get any decent shots with a Hasselblad 500C?
 
Trius said:
Yeah, using a handheld meter, setting aperture & shutter speed is just too tiring. Makes you wonder how weddings were ever done before auto/digital/etc. How did the photographer at my wedding get any decent shots with a Hasselblad 500C?
Click to expand...

When photographers still shot weddings with Hasselblads, they didn't do much candid work. Traditional wedding photography was based on posed formals, catching a few important moments (eg. Cutting the Cake, Throwing the flowers, etc). Todays weddings are usually done in the "photojournalist" style that emphasizes fast action and candid work. For that you need a camera that operates quickly, has a built in meter, and whose aperture closes down automatically when you press the shutter release. A hasselblad's aperture is automatic, but I don't believe that's the case with a Canon digital using an old Zuiko lens on an adapter.
 
Yeah even the 5d with the great VF is very difficult to use with manual focus lenses. You'd pretty much need a split prism focussing screen to be able to do it, only thing is that the 3rd party ones can effect metering. The 17-40 f4L is a great lens - I have a feeling not much at all would beat my zuiko 28 3.5, including stuff like leica glass. The olympus flares like hell though, and the 17-40 basically doesn't flare at all.

To use manual focus primes in a wedding for an eos photographer isn't really worth it - not when you have such beautiful lenses as the 24 2.4L, 35 1.4L, 50 1.2L, 85 1.2L and the 135 f2L.
All of the above are pretty much the best lenses in their field or at least at the top of the list, and much faster to use in a quick paced atmosphere then an adapted other brand MF lens. These lenses are pretty much the reason why I stay with canon. I like the d3, but nikons primes are lacking.
 
fdigital said:
Yeah even the 5d with the great VF is very difficult to use with manual focus lenses. You'd pretty much need a split prism focussing screen to be able to do it, only thing is that the 3rd party ones can effect metering. The 17-40 f4L is a great lens - I have a feeling not much at all would beat my zuiko 28 3.5, including stuff like leica glass. The olympus flares like hell though, and the 17-40 basically doesn't flare at all.

To use manual focus primes in a wedding for an eos photographer isn't really worth it - not when you have such beautiful lenses as the 24 2.4L, 35 1.4L, 50 1.2L, 85 1.2L and the 135 f2L.
All of the above are pretty much the best lenses in their field or at least at the top of the list, and much faster to use in a quick paced atmosphere then an adapted other brand MF lens. These lenses are pretty much the reason why I stay with canon. I like the d3, but nikons primes are lacking.
Click to expand...

I think most autofocus SLRs, digital or film, are hard to manually focus with the standard screens. I replaced the standard screen in my F4s with a Nikon K screen, which is the split image with microprism ring. Much easier to focus manually. I wish I could do the same for my D70, it's a pain to manually focus so i often just use auto since I mainly use the camera for snapshots of my son, and the D70's autofocus is a lot faster and more accurate than my old F4's autofocus.
 
The 50/1.8 is a tad better than the 1.4 I reckon. Here are some 50/1.8:
1205961466_099cd16e91.jpg



1249404756_3e99f86b48.jpg


1498968510_5d16abd82a.jpg


50/1.4 (the DOF is amazing though):
1571669546_b9e9cb8491.jpg
 
chambrenoire: Yes, it's hard to beat the 50/1.8. That said, I may do a comparison of the 1.8 & 1.4 side by side (same subject, lighting, film, camera, etc.) and see what happens. My 1.4 isn't the latest version, I'm still looking for one at a reasonable price. Or maybe just get the 50/1.2. :D
 
Trius said:
I sold my 28/3.5 body cap to a member in the UK, so I now use my 28/2.8 when I need a 28mm body cap. :)



50/1.4 body cap, wide open

1400274562_9ed9df4b18.jpg


50/1.4 body cap + Vivitar 2x Macro adapter

536489655_73e9a3ad23_o.jpg


Edit: And 28/2.8 body cap

1864985579_bec11627fd.jpg
Click to expand...

And very nice the lens is too!!

The intial roll of XP2 is being processed at the moment--- I hope the results do justice to your 28.

I recently traded for a 100/2.8 to try to catch the grandkids unawares:) The days will be lengthening here soon as well,so much to look forward to.

Brian.
 
I have a few 50/1.8 , various editions of this lens. Oddly my 2 "made in Japan" lenses' coatings reflect different colours :confused: One of them seems exactly the same as my "MC" version, the other is still multi-coated but different coatings (?)

The later lenses seem more prone to slow aperture blades and internal dust. I may do tests with these lenses on E-6 film to see if any difference can be seen, when time and decent light levels allow.

I also have the 1.4 single-coated, which I like, I will have to test this with the 1.8s :)
 
Peter_Jones said:
I have a few 50/1.8 , various editions of this lens. Oddly my 2 "made in Japan" lenses' coatings reflect different colours :confused: One of them seems exactly the same as my "MC" version, the other is still multi-coated but different coatings (?)

The later lenses seem more prone to slow aperture blades and internal dust. I may do tests with these lenses on E-6 film to see if any difference can be seen, when time and decent light levels allow.

I also have the 1.4 single-coated, which I like, I will have to test this with the 1.8s :)
Click to expand...


I have a couple of MIJ lenses that have aperture problems, which I thought funny because no other Zuiko has done that to me, not even real old ones.
 
with the "body cap" i shoot in a cave where the only light was the one of our head lamps.
(OM1 + bodycap50mmf/1.8 + tmax 3200)

and the photos are great!
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I have a couple of MIJ lenses that have aperture problems, which I thought funny because no other Zuiko has done that to me, not even real old ones.
Click to expand...
That's very interesting. I haven't had enough miJs (well, a total sample size of one!) to comment, but so far no problems. Keeping my fingers crossed. I did have one 50/1.8 with slow aperture, but right now I can't remember which iteration.
 
A little comment aboud identifying various versions of OM lenses.

Silver nose are the oldest, and are single coated.
F.Zuiko (or whatever letter before the "Zuiko") means it's single coated.
Zuiko + MC obviously multi coated
Zuiko + Japan also multicoated
Zuiko + Made in Japan the latest which is said to be the best.

I'm not sure but there might also exist a version Zuiko (i.e. w/o letter before and w/o any other designation)

When I did a comparisson of one "silver nose" and one "Japan" the silver nose was cooler with lower contrast and the Japan was warmer with higher contrast. I found the resolution to be very similar.
 
Not all silver nose are single coated, AFAIK. And I believe there were some black trim (non- silver nose) lenses that were not multi-coated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom