dukovac
Member
When I started with available light portrait photography some months ago (my doughter was born...) I only had an old full manual ricoh slr which teached me about photography years ago. I had only cheap slow zoom lenses and realized very soon that i need something else. Then I thought going digital would be the right thing and bought the fujifilm f30 and got some nice results - until i tried to print the images. Well anything above ISO400 is definitely noisy to my standards (i don´t want even want know how other compact digital cameras look at ISO400 as F30 is far the best at low light in every test). And, to be honest, even the prints of lower isos are IMO not as nice as real photos from my old ricoh. The F30 is also very slow at the long (portraiture) end (f5.0 at "100"mm). Last, but not least, i realized that I want to have my little princess on real film...i simply want it that way. Because of that and also because i want to have shorter DOF than with sub-full frame DSLRs have i went searching for something better.
fullframe DSLR are out of my budget, and leicas too.
At the portraiture lenghts as far as i know among RFs only contax/kiev and the M3 give secure focusing (well some new leicas with special viewfinder magnification would make it too) so i bought a mint kiev 4 and a jupiter 9, which is probably the ultimate combo for low price low light portrait photography (anybody have other ideas?).
Well I AM rather satisfied and now i'm getting the pictures i wanted (focusing is really good, only that i have to imagine 85mm framing or to look through an extra 85mm viewfinder). Most of my photos are sharp, bokeh is good (ok i like 135mm more blurred bokeh more than 85mm but those lenses are IMO just too heavy, too slow and, well, too long for the purpose of low light hand-held portraiture), hand-held long exposures are no problem. In fact I'm still exploring - on the last film i had virtually no shaken pictures (some unsharp and some underexposed, though) but never went under 1/50 sec. BUT the kiev together with that lens is surely over 1kg, which probably wouldnt be a problem an a SLR but that damn contax grip. Even if I ever get used to the pain in my fingers during shooting, it's still that i'm losing opportunities because i have a finger over the rangefinder window or i hold the lens so i see my hand through the viewfinder.
So, after further research I came to OM1 - a SLR but with a bright viewfinder which would probably make low light 85mm focusing comparable to Kiev or Leica (please correct me if I'm wrong) and a really quiet and light shutter so handheld exposures comparable to RFs should be possible (am I right on that?). And the prices are OK.
So my only real concern is: what about the lenses? How does Zuiko 85mm 1:2,0 compares to jupiter 85mm 1:2,0? Is anyone here who had experience with both lenses?
Thanx for any help!
d
PS: Please don't tell me any solutions for 1000 Euro 'cause if i would want to spend so much at this moment I'd get M3 without thinking
fullframe DSLR are out of my budget, and leicas too.
At the portraiture lenghts as far as i know among RFs only contax/kiev and the M3 give secure focusing (well some new leicas with special viewfinder magnification would make it too) so i bought a mint kiev 4 and a jupiter 9, which is probably the ultimate combo for low price low light portrait photography (anybody have other ideas?).
Well I AM rather satisfied and now i'm getting the pictures i wanted (focusing is really good, only that i have to imagine 85mm framing or to look through an extra 85mm viewfinder). Most of my photos are sharp, bokeh is good (ok i like 135mm more blurred bokeh more than 85mm but those lenses are IMO just too heavy, too slow and, well, too long for the purpose of low light hand-held portraiture), hand-held long exposures are no problem. In fact I'm still exploring - on the last film i had virtually no shaken pictures (some unsharp and some underexposed, though) but never went under 1/50 sec. BUT the kiev together with that lens is surely over 1kg, which probably wouldnt be a problem an a SLR but that damn contax grip. Even if I ever get used to the pain in my fingers during shooting, it's still that i'm losing opportunities because i have a finger over the rangefinder window or i hold the lens so i see my hand through the viewfinder.
So, after further research I came to OM1 - a SLR but with a bright viewfinder which would probably make low light 85mm focusing comparable to Kiev or Leica (please correct me if I'm wrong) and a really quiet and light shutter so handheld exposures comparable to RFs should be possible (am I right on that?). And the prices are OK.
So my only real concern is: what about the lenses? How does Zuiko 85mm 1:2,0 compares to jupiter 85mm 1:2,0? Is anyone here who had experience with both lenses?
Thanx for any help!
d
PS: Please don't tell me any solutions for 1000 Euro 'cause if i would want to spend so much at this moment I'd get M3 without thinking
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I have both 85s, and you are right the OM -1 with the Zuiko 85mm makes a nice portrait taking rig.
the J-9 is suprisingly good , even at f2 - 2.8
when I got my Zuiko 85mm back in the early 1980, I was taken aback at how soft this lens was at full bore, and a bit disapointed, but it was plenty sharp from f5.6 down, but then I realized that the softness at f 2 was actually an asset for portraits and consider this lens a fine lens for that job.
the 100mm f2.8 Zuiko is better in the sharpness game, but the 85mm is more satisfying for portraits.
the J-9 is suprisingly good , even at f2 - 2.8
when I got my Zuiko 85mm back in the early 1980, I was taken aback at how soft this lens was at full bore, and a bit disapointed, but it was plenty sharp from f5.6 down, but then I realized that the softness at f 2 was actually an asset for portraits and consider this lens a fine lens for that job.
the 100mm f2.8 Zuiko is better in the sharpness game, but the 85mm is more satisfying for portraits.
ferider
Veteran
I have used both, dukovac. Not a direct test, but my feeling is that,
while color rendering might be a bit different, wrt sharpness and
OOF behavior they are very similar. Both great for portraits at f2
with more "bite" at f2.8 and up, and really nice, smooth backgrounds.
Always loved the fact that the J-9 is so small. The Zuiko is even smaller.
And you can use the same filters and hoods on both. It's a good choice
for the money (they run between US 200 and 250 at KEH).
Best,
Roland.
PS: I suggest you delete the other thread.
while color rendering might be a bit different, wrt sharpness and
OOF behavior they are very similar. Both great for portraits at f2
with more "bite" at f2.8 and up, and really nice, smooth backgrounds.
Always loved the fact that the J-9 is so small. The Zuiko is even smaller.
And you can use the same filters and hoods on both. It's a good choice
for the money (they run between US 200 and 250 at KEH).
Best,
Roland.
PS: I suggest you delete the other thread.
Wayne R. Scott
Half fast Leica User
I posted this to the other duplicate thread before I realized it was a duplicate.
I think that the Zuiko 85mm f2.0 will be fine on the OM-1. I have a feeling that build quality of the Zuiko will be better than the J9, I don't know that the Zuiko glass will give any better pictures than the J9.
I have a J9 for Kiev/Contax that seemed to be very stiff in focussing so I sent it off to Golden Touch Lens service and had it serviced by Sherri Krauter. I spent more on the service than I did the lens and it is still not an exceptionally smooth focussing lens.
All of the Zuiko lens that I have owned have been fine, although I have never owned the 85mm f2.0. I do own a Nikkor 85mm f2.0 AIS and I love that focal length for portraits. I do own a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro lens that I would recommend as it is very sharp and can do close-ups of your baby girls fingers, toes and eyes. If you decide to change slr systems you simply change the adaptall mount to fit your slr body and the 90mm is still usable. It is only f2.8 though, you may find this a drawback, I don't.
Wayne
I think that the Zuiko 85mm f2.0 will be fine on the OM-1. I have a feeling that build quality of the Zuiko will be better than the J9, I don't know that the Zuiko glass will give any better pictures than the J9.
I have a J9 for Kiev/Contax that seemed to be very stiff in focussing so I sent it off to Golden Touch Lens service and had it serviced by Sherri Krauter. I spent more on the service than I did the lens and it is still not an exceptionally smooth focussing lens.
All of the Zuiko lens that I have owned have been fine, although I have never owned the 85mm f2.0. I do own a Nikkor 85mm f2.0 AIS and I love that focal length for portraits. I do own a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro lens that I would recommend as it is very sharp and can do close-ups of your baby girls fingers, toes and eyes. If you decide to change slr systems you simply change the adaptall mount to fit your slr body and the 90mm is still usable. It is only f2.8 though, you may find this a drawback, I don't.
Wayne
dukovac
Member
Brian Sweeney said:
Well I want OM1 for ergonomics and Canon is rather heavy camera as far as I know.
Thanx however.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
OM-1 is an excellent choice, ultimately, I'd save up to get an 85mm/2 unless I can get a cheap adapter to fit the Jupiter 9 (half the price of the Zuiko).
Meanwhile, get a dirt cheap Zuiko 50mm/1.4 which will allow you to take a picture of your daughter sleeping at night
Meanwhile, get a dirt cheap Zuiko 50mm/1.4 which will allow you to take a picture of your daughter sleeping at night
dukovac
Member
Wayne R. Scott said:
Just like mine. I have to focus with the left hand instead of using the focusing wheel.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
shadowfox said:OM-1 is an excellent choice, ultimately, I'd save up to get an 85mm/2 unless I can get a cheap adapter to fit the Jupiter 9 (half the price of the Zuiko).
Meanwhile, get a dirt cheap Zuiko 50mm/1.4 which will allow you to take a picture of your daughter sleeping at night
I have never seen an Oly to M42 adapter, it might not exist due to different back focus issues, although I have adapters for the Canon FD and Minolta mount, and these work ok with M42 lenses.
the J-9 will have to be an M42 type as the LTM one is only good for very close up pics on an SLR.
dukovac
Member
shadowfox said:Meanwhile, get a dirt cheap Zuiko 50mm/1.4 which will allow you to take a picture of your daughter sleeping at night
How does the OM1 compare to the kiev in terms of shutter noise?
(I could get a cheap pentax 50mm/1.4 for my ricoh but I wake my doughter at the first shot
dukovac
Member
Brian Sweeney said:
But why? focusing issues? Shutter noise? I thought the OM1 wold do it, for the bright finder and the silent shutter....
VinceC
Veteran
Nothing will be as quiet as your Kiev. At some settings, they barely whisper.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
There are M42 adapters for the OM (I have one), but 99.9% of them do not focus to infinity. I think maybe Novoflex made one that did so, but IIRC the price was more than a J9. So unless you were planning on using other M42 lenses on the OM, it would not be worth it ... if you could find one.
My impression of the 85/2 (haven't owned one), is that it is not as sharp as the Zuiko 90/2 macro, but it is not nearly as pricey, either. However, I think there is a lot of sample variability, and I personally would plan on having a good CLA done if I were to buy an 85/2.
The other suggestions for the 100/2.8 and 50/1.4 are good ones, as well. The 100/2.8 is both sharp and has very pleasant colour and oof renditions; it is quite a bargain. It might give you most of the out-of-focus effect you would get with the 135, without being too long.
For the 50/1.4, try to get one with a serial number of 1.1M or higher. The earlier 50/1.4s were not quite as good, though mine is < 1.1M and I have no complaints.
One of the other benefits of a short tele on an SLR, esp. the OM with its bright VF, is that composing is, IMO, a much nicer experience. As much as I love RFs, the look of a good SLR vf when filled by a fast short-tele is much more conducive to good composition and selection of aperture.
The downside, of course, is the increased vibration of an SLR. For handheld candids, I think an OM-2 might be preferable; having auto exposure when a child is young is a good thing, and you can always switch to manual if you wish. The downside of the OM-2 is that it does not have mirror lock-up as on the OM-1/3/4. Not a problem for candids, but if you were doing landscape, still life, macro, etc., on a tripod, having mirror lock-up is a big plus.
My impression of the 85/2 (haven't owned one), is that it is not as sharp as the Zuiko 90/2 macro, but it is not nearly as pricey, either. However, I think there is a lot of sample variability, and I personally would plan on having a good CLA done if I were to buy an 85/2.
The other suggestions for the 100/2.8 and 50/1.4 are good ones, as well. The 100/2.8 is both sharp and has very pleasant colour and oof renditions; it is quite a bargain. It might give you most of the out-of-focus effect you would get with the 135, without being too long.
For the 50/1.4, try to get one with a serial number of 1.1M or higher. The earlier 50/1.4s were not quite as good, though mine is < 1.1M and I have no complaints.
One of the other benefits of a short tele on an SLR, esp. the OM with its bright VF, is that composing is, IMO, a much nicer experience. As much as I love RFs, the look of a good SLR vf when filled by a fast short-tele is much more conducive to good composition and selection of aperture.
The downside, of course, is the increased vibration of an SLR. For handheld candids, I think an OM-2
might be preferable; having auto exposure when a child is young is a good thing, and you can always switch to manual if you wish. The downside of the OM-2 is that it does not have mirror lock-up as on the OM-1/3/4. Not a problem for candids, but if you were doing landscape, still life, macro, etc., on a tripod, having mirror lock-up is a big plus.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
Out of all the FSU RFs, the Fed 2 has a very long RF base, almost twice as long as most of my other cameras and just a long as my Kiev.
It'll be trickier getting a good and cheap LTM 85/2. Good LTM J9's are harder to come by, but a few Canon LTM 85's have shown up forsale around here before.
It'll be trickier getting a good and cheap LTM 85/2. Good LTM J9's are harder to come by, but a few Canon LTM 85's have shown up forsale around here before.
ferider
Veteran
Depends on the distance, Brian.
For 1m minimum distance the 85/2 has a DOF of 2cm which is equivalent to the 50/1. The 50/1.4 has 3cm DOF. (same COC & format). A Jupiter 9 is as hard to focus as a Noctilux.
One the other hand it gets more difficult for 50/1.4 SLR lenses that have less
min. distance, typically half meter or so.
Roland.
For 1m minimum distance the 85/2 has a DOF of 2cm which is equivalent to the 50/1. The 50/1.4 has 3cm DOF. (same COC & format). A Jupiter 9 is as hard to focus as a Noctilux.
One the other hand it gets more difficult for 50/1.4 SLR lenses that have less
min. distance, typically half meter or so.
Roland.
Last edited:
arbib
Well-known
dukovac said:
You really shouldn't use the focus wheel on your Kiev or Contax for any lens above 50mm. the mechanics are not build for the weight of the lens stress that would be imposed on the wheel while focusing a 85/2 or 135/4.
I own an LTM 85/2. my focus is smooth, But it does have a LONG way to travel from 1m to INF.. a draw back, The Wheel might make it a bit more manageable, but it was not made for that kind of stress.
R
ruben
Guest
dukovac said:
Having both I can say this: The Om1 is the most civilized low noise fellow from Woodstock. The Kiev is an average sitter at a doctor waiting room.