Spyderman
Well-known
This is a test of my lenses for Oly OM which I did recently. I just wanted to know how my lenses perform, but I think it might be interesting for you as well, so I'm posting it.
The lenses were used with an adaptor on a DSLR. The camera used was EOS D30 (not 30D!) with 3 megapixels and crop factor 1.6. This means that the corners from the test pictures are far from corners on film! So if the lens is weak in corners on digital, it will be much worse in corners on film!
The tested lenses are these:
Zuiko 28mm f/3.5 SC, black nose, very good shape
Zuiko 35mm f/2.8 SC, black nose, good shape
Zuiko 35mm f/2 MC, mint
Carl Zeiss Jena 35 f/2.4 MC (M42 mount), after CLA, very good shape
Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 SC, silver nose, good shape
Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 MC, very good shape
Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 MC + 2xTC Osawa MC4
Zuiko 85mm f/2 MC, dent in filter ring - probably dropped?
Zuiko 135mm f/3.5 SC, black nose, good shape
Zuiko 200mm f/4 MC, very good shape
Hanimar 200mm f/3.5 SC (M42 mount), very good shape
The test target was the house in the next picture. The red rectangles are areas that are cropped and shown at 100% in the test pictures for particular lens.
The lenses were used with an adaptor on a DSLR. The camera used was EOS D30 (not 30D!) with 3 megapixels and crop factor 1.6. This means that the corners from the test pictures are far from corners on film! So if the lens is weak in corners on digital, it will be much worse in corners on film!
The tested lenses are these:
Zuiko 28mm f/3.5 SC, black nose, very good shape
Zuiko 35mm f/2.8 SC, black nose, good shape
Zuiko 35mm f/2 MC, mint
Carl Zeiss Jena 35 f/2.4 MC (M42 mount), after CLA, very good shape
Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 SC, silver nose, good shape
Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 MC, very good shape
Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 MC + 2xTC Osawa MC4
Zuiko 85mm f/2 MC, dent in filter ring - probably dropped?
Zuiko 135mm f/3.5 SC, black nose, good shape
Zuiko 200mm f/4 MC, very good shape
Hanimar 200mm f/3.5 SC (M42 mount), very good shape
The test target was the house in the next picture. The red rectangles are areas that are cropped and shown at 100% in the test pictures for particular lens.
Attachments
Spyderman
Well-known
Spyderman
Well-known
The next three (35s)
Zuiko 35/2.8
Zuiko 35/2 THIS WAS PROBABLY MISFOCUSSED!
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35/2.4 MC
Please notice that the Zuiko 35/2 shot was probably misfocussed. I did another thest with newspaper and setting focus by measure tape, and the lens was closer to Zuiko 35/2 but still a bit softer.
Zuiko 35/2.8
Zuiko 35/2 THIS WAS PROBABLY MISFOCUSSED!
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35/2.4 MC
Please notice that the Zuiko 35/2 shot was probably misfocussed. I did another thest with newspaper and setting focus by measure tape, and the lens was closer to Zuiko 35/2 but still a bit softer.
Attachments
Spyderman
Well-known
Spyderman
Well-known
Spyderman
Well-known
Spyderman
Well-known
That's it.
To sum it up:
28/3.5 is very sharp throughout the image at all apertures, show slight vignetting wide open.
35/2.8 is very sharp throughout the image at all apertures
35/2 is soft till f/4, from f/5.6 it improves but still doesn't reach the sharpness of 35/2.8 at f/4
CZJ 35/2.4 is sharper than 35/2 but softer than 35/2.8 and reaches the sharpness of 35/2.8 at f/8
both 50/1.8 are equally sharp.
The TC seriously degrades the quality of the lens in corners, slightly also in center.
85/2 is still soft at f/5.6
135/3.5 is a little soft wide open, but very sharp from f/5.6 on
200/4 is sharp throughout the image at all apertures
hanimar 200/3.5 is soft wide open, but stopped down reaches the sharpness of Zuiko 200/4, it aslo has a lot of chromatic aberation wide open.
Also, I noticed that the Zuiko MC lenses have somewhat warmer rendition than SC lenses.
And that's all folks
To sum it up:
28/3.5 is very sharp throughout the image at all apertures, show slight vignetting wide open.
35/2.8 is very sharp throughout the image at all apertures
35/2 is soft till f/4, from f/5.6 it improves but still doesn't reach the sharpness of 35/2.8 at f/4
CZJ 35/2.4 is sharper than 35/2 but softer than 35/2.8 and reaches the sharpness of 35/2.8 at f/8
both 50/1.8 are equally sharp.
The TC seriously degrades the quality of the lens in corners, slightly also in center.
85/2 is still soft at f/5.6
135/3.5 is a little soft wide open, but very sharp from f/5.6 on
200/4 is sharp throughout the image at all apertures
hanimar 200/3.5 is soft wide open, but stopped down reaches the sharpness of Zuiko 200/4, it aslo has a lot of chromatic aberation wide open.
Also, I noticed that the Zuiko MC lenses have somewhat warmer rendition than SC lenses.
And that's all folks
ferider
Veteran
Intersting results, Ondrej. Thanks for doing and publishing this. Among the lenses that you tested I have used 28/3.5, 80/2 and 135/3.5. My experience with the first and the 3rd lens is similar to yours. The 85/2 I used was soft at 2.0 but pretty good
from f2.8 up.
Best,
Roland.
from f2.8 up.
Best,
Roland.
sirius
Well-known
It's an interesting test. Thanks for sharing it. I like that you have reproduced what is commonly said about these lenses.
I've seen a lot of comments about the 85mm f2 being soft, esp. compared to the 90mm f2. It must depend what you want to do with the lens.
I've seen equally as many comments, if not more, by people praising this lens for the excellent portraits that can be done with it. Often people say that the 90mm is just too sharp for portraits.
I've not had first hand experience with these lenses but it seems everyone praises Zuiko glass for the excellent character that they bring to making images. Would users agree?
I've seen a lot of comments about the 85mm f2 being soft, esp. compared to the 90mm f2. It must depend what you want to do with the lens.
I've seen equally as many comments, if not more, by people praising this lens for the excellent portraits that can be done with it. Often people say that the 90mm is just too sharp for portraits.
I've not had first hand experience with these lenses but it seems everyone praises Zuiko glass for the excellent character that they bring to making images. Would users agree?
Igor.Burshteyn
Well-known
interesting. Would be interesting to see how 28mm f2.8 and 135mm f2.8 fare.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Thanks, Ondrej ... the results don't surprise me much, although the difference between the 50s in terms of colour and contrast is pretty striking. It would be interesting to add the 50 miJ to the mix.
The 200/f4 performance wide open isn't great, IMO.
I'd like to see the 35/2 re-tested. It's possible that lens (not just your sample) was subject to mis-alignment. I've seen some very nice work with the 35/2. While the 35/2.8 seems to always be sharper, I really find it hard to believe that Olympus produced a less sharp lens for their fast 35. Maitani took a great deal of pride in the fast primes, so I'm puzzled as to why the 35/2 is often cited for being less capable than the 35/2.8.
The 200/f4 performance wide open isn't great, IMO.
I'd like to see the 35/2 re-tested. It's possible that lens (not just your sample) was subject to mis-alignment. I've seen some very nice work with the 35/2. While the 35/2.8 seems to always be sharper, I really find it hard to believe that Olympus produced a less sharp lens for their fast 35. Maitani took a great deal of pride in the fast primes, so I'm puzzled as to why the 35/2 is often cited for being less capable than the 35/2.8.
R
ray_g
Guest
I guess the reports about the 85/2 are very sample-dependent. The one I had was sharp at the center wide open, with a nice softness at the corners for portraits. Stopped down, it was plenty sharp. It is softer than the 90/2 - but one is a portrait lens while the other is a macro.
My experience with the 35/2 has been excellent as well. Similarly, I find the flektogon a very nice lens, sharp with warm color rendition.
Which 50/1.8 lenses did you test - were these the "made in japan" versions?
My experience with the 35/2 has been excellent as well. Similarly, I find the flektogon a very nice lens, sharp with warm color rendition.
Which 50/1.8 lenses did you test - were these the "made in japan" versions?
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Not to steal your post, Ondrej, just thought I'd clarify. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Ray: The 50s were the early version silver-nose single coated, and the MC was pre miJ. The miJ lens did not have MC marked on the the trim ring.
Ray: The 50s were the early version silver-nose single coated, and the MC was pre miJ. The miJ lens did not have MC marked on the the trim ring.
Last edited:
Spyderman
Well-known
Yes, exactly. The SC was silver nose, and the MC has only "Japan" , not "Made in Japan" so it's not the latest version.
But both proved to be equally sharp except for difference in color rendition and contrast.
Interesting that the lower contrast and cooler color rendition is visible already on the small thumbnails below posts...
I'm sorry I can't add any more lenses to the test at the moment. I just tested the ones I have. But... a friend of mine, a RFF member Zuikomatt is also from Bratislava also has a couple of OM lenses... 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 135/2.8. I could talk to him, and maybe do another test... with more apertures tested. And maybe I could borrow a 350D from another friend and get 8 MP files. We'll see...
PS: anyone want to lend me their 5D and some kind of viewfinder magnifier ? Full frame test shots would be more interesting...
But both proved to be equally sharp except for difference in color rendition and contrast.
Interesting that the lower contrast and cooler color rendition is visible already on the small thumbnails below posts...
I'm sorry I can't add any more lenses to the test at the moment. I just tested the ones I have. But... a friend of mine, a RFF member Zuikomatt is also from Bratislava also has a couple of OM lenses... 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 135/2.8. I could talk to him, and maybe do another test... with more apertures tested. And maybe I could borrow a 350D from another friend and get 8 MP files. We'll see...
PS: anyone want to lend me their 5D and some kind of viewfinder magnifier ?
Full frame test shots would be more interesting...
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I'd be very interested in a 28/2.8 test vs. the 28/3.5. As far as full frame sensor goes, I don't think we'd be too thrilled with the results at the edges of the frame!
sirius
Well-known
Here is another lens test of Zuiko lenses on 3/4's digital camera.
http://www.biofos.com/cornucop/omz_e1.html
http://www.biofos.com/cornucop/omz_e1.html
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Hmm, I'm using these lenses on my E-300, which has a crop factor of 2.0, so the softness near the edge of the lenses should be even less apparent on my setup, right?
There you go, one more reason to use these wonderful lenses on a 4/3rd system
There you go, one more reason to use these wonderful lenses on a 4/3rd system
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Shadow: Yup. Although Olympus sorta pooh-poohs the wonderful 21/2 on a 4/3s sensor. But I hanker to try it out.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Speaking (earlier) of the 35/2, here's a wonderful shot by Graham Battison with the 35/2: http://www.geebeephoto.com/2007/07020.htm
And from the 100/2: http://www.geebeephoto.com/2007/07021.htm
Both with Kodak BW 400CN
And from the 100/2: http://www.geebeephoto.com/2007/07021.htm
Both with Kodak BW 400CN
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Trius said:
Wow, what a wonderful gallery. Thanks, Trius.