$25 and a $3800 lens

[SteveRD1]

Picked up an Olympus OM-1 for $25 and a Zuiko 50 1.4 for $25 - $50 for the pair. For fun, I snapped a shot of my wife with this combo and the M7 - Noctilux combo. This is just a quick snapshot in my kitchen.

The oly $50 combo is not that far off from the mega bucks Nocti combo.

1st shot below is the Noctilux/M7 at F1
2nd shot is the OM1/50 at 1.4

I also compared some shots with my Summicron and my cron is killer sharp compared to the Zuiko. For my Nocti/Zuiko shots they are VERY close. Kind of makes me wonder - $25 vs $3800. No doubt the Nocti is a much better made lens and of course goes to F1, but as far as overall image quality is it THAT much better?

Its larger, heavier, can not focus as close and cost nearly $3800 more than the cheap-o zuiko 50 1.4.


3rd shot is the Summicron at 5.6, 4th the zuiko at 5.6 - cron is MUCH better here.

These web sized images are not a great representation of the capabilities but at full size you can clearly see the benefit of the summicron, but the Noctilux and Zuiko are pretty close. I was suprised.

Im in no way bashing the Noct (I own one) - just some observations from a couple of snapshots.

 

[Nachkebia]

Zuikos are cool indeed....

 

[kully]

How do they compare when both are at f/1.4? Seems unfair on the Noctilux when it is open a whole stop more.

But I like Zuikos, my little 50.1.8 os great

 

[Sparrow]

Think yourself lucky if you had chanced on the Oly 50mm f2 macro that would have run the Summicron close

 

[minimicrite]

I've heard the 50/1.4 Zuiko isn't all that sharp. Of course, I read those reviews after I'd already laid down $40 for one that arrived with sticky aperture blades. (I hate ePay sometimes). The standard 50/1.8 (or 1.7, I can't remember what the standard 50 is) is supposedly a sharper lens.

Regarding the Nocti: The cost is in the aperture. The Summicron/-lux are supposedly considerably sharper, but sacrifice speed.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I agree with you, Steve, there seems to be almost no difference between the Nocti and the Zuiko... except for a small, green spot that seems to hover above your model's head, back in the distance.

Otherwise, this confirms my notion that most lenses commercially available are fairly good, regardless of pedigree. It's simply that some are a little better than others, but their sharpness is not an issue.

 

[Pherdinand]

I hope your wife is not reading this one. It might be your last shot with the Noctilux.

 

[steamer]

Steve, your wife obviously prefers to have her picture taken with the noct. I think it might be best to just admit the greatness and mystical qualities of the Leica glass so we Olympians can still pick up some reasonably priced zuiko glass on the sly from time to time.
Steamer

 

[MikeL]

Do you have a Pentax Spotmatic and a 50mm 1.4 SMC lying around? Could be interesting....

 

[egpj]

I'd sell that Nocti and go buy the wife a pair of diamond earrings.

 

[Spyderman]

Noctilux is unique for its ability to shoot in darkness.

Let's say a OM-1 with Zuiko 50/1.4 can shoot at 1/30 at f/1.4, where Leica with Noctilux can shoot 1/15 (or even 1/8 if you can handhold it) at f/1. Which is 2 (or 3) stops darker.

And it isn't a secret that slower lenses tend to be sharper (take Tessar 50/3.5 for example).

I just wonder why would anyone pay 3800 USD for a lens...

 

[ampguy]

I was thinking the same

I was thinking the same

although that might be $50, double the Zuiko! 😛

Do you have a Pentax Spotmatic and a 50mm 1.4 SMC lying around? Could be interesting....

 

[oscroft]

I've heard the 50/1.4 Zuiko isn't all that sharp. Of course, I read those reviews after I'd already laid down $40 for one that arrived with sticky aperture blades. (I hate ePay sometimes). The standard 50/1.8 (or 1.7, I can't remember what the standard 50 is) is supposedly a sharper lens.

I've got both 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 zuiko lenses, and some time ago I did some comparison shots and couldn't really see any difference in sharpness. (I've no idea where the shots are now, unfortunately).

 

[Paulbe]

Oh Boy--revealed. I am glad you brought this up. I did a very unscientific comparison of the pix I take--among a Nikkormat EL, Canon F1(new) and Leica M6--all with 50mm 1.4 lens--and there is NOT $850.00 worth of difference in the lens. For the type of pix I take.
The M6 advance is much smoother though...
Paul

 

[adayoncedawned]

On my screen, the noct has rendered a significant amount of definition on top of the oly and at an unfair aperture advantage on the oly's part.

Perhaps you missed focus on the oly but I think the ease of focusing on an M is another factor which contributes to superior image quality in practical applications. I'm terrible at focusing with SLR, myself. Then there's also mirror-slap, yadda yadda...

Also, if at this small resolution a difference is noticeable, imagine the comparison of a 11x14 print.

Am I the only one that's seeing a difference? I just took another close look. Definitely undeniable.

 

[jshelly]

Am I the only one that's seeing a difference? I just took another close look. Definitely undeniable.

I don't think he said they were exactly the same, the quote was "not that far off"

Yes, there is a difference, but I concur not $3800 worth of difference

 

[John Camp]

Hmm. I'd say it's undeniably indefinite.

JC

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

I can see a diiference in your wife's photos, in the Noctilux photo she is happy that you have such a great lens, and in the Oly photo she has just found out how much you paid for the great Noctilux lens.

Wayne

 

[matt fury]

You bought the Noct new and the Oly used. If you had bought the Noct used, it'd only be about a $1900 difference. lol..not that it changes the point of the post. I think Summilux vs the Oly would be more interesting though.

 

[SteveM(PA)]

I wonder, in all of noctiluxdom, if anyone ever has told their friends or SO's what they paid for their Noctili...I know if I did, and told, I'd be taking this [points to bum] on down the road. 🙂