Olympus 50mm f/1.4 opinions?

[Pfreddee]

I'm looking to add this lens to the one that came with the camera: a 50mm f/1.8. I do a fair amount of low-light (or available dark) photography, and I'm wondering how this one would do for an every-day, walk-around lens.

Opinions, please?

Thanks to all who reply. Everyone has been exceptionally helpful in answering my previous questions.

With best regards,

Pfreddee(Stephen)

 

[Keith]

I have two versions of this lens. I have the earlier silver nosed type which lacks a little sharpness wide open and I have the later one which seems noticably sharper at f1.4 and is a lot less flare prone.

I like them both!

Of course the ultimate low light 50mm Zuiko has to be the 50mm f1.2 ... but they aren't exactly cheap!

 

[redisburning]

well if you need a faster lens than f1.8 and you can't swing one of the f1.2 lenses, it'll do.

select these based on speed and price you can afford IMO. camera shake is the real killer at these EVs and I found the hype train behind the latest version to be unwarranted. they're all sharp enough at f4 anyway, although there are some reservations to that. for 3d objects you'll be in fine shape.

wide open:

Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr
f4:

Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr
this is probably a more representative selection based on your proposed usage, any really any f1.4 lens is sharper than what you will get in these situations:

Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I used it on my Canon 5Dc. Cheap, but very well build good lens.
The only one thing I didn't like on it is 1.4, 2 and 2.8, nothing in between.

 

[f16sunshine]

It's a worthwhile upgrade from the f1.8. Just a tiny bit larger and likewise more expensive.
Just like the SMC Takumar f1.4/50mm for the m42 system the zuiko f1.4/50mm is a very high value for dollars spent bit of kit.
Don't discard the f1.8 though it's too inexpensive to not keep around as a BU.
I agree with Keith on the later f1.4's seeming sharper. I think it's the improvement in micro-contrast more than anything.

 

[MIkhail]

this is probably a more representative selection based on your proposed usage, any really any f1.4 lens is sharper than what you will get in these situations:

Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

Obviously, the lens is a problem here. Otherwise fantastic powerful image, no doubt, but the cheap lens spoiled it.... Shame..

 

[Mystyler]

I used it on my Canon 5Dc. Cheap, but very well build good lens.
The only one thing I didn't like on it is 1.4, 2 and 2.8, nothing in between.

Hi Ko.Fe.
Even though there are no detents, you can estimate an intermediate f/stop and set it there. Olympus has stated in product literature that you can use the lens in this fashion without fear of damage.
Of course, you may know this already. 😉

 

[Noll]

I recently bought and sent an early 50mm 1.4 back for exchange based on worse-than-expected condition.

That said, the photos that I took with it for the couple days I had it were enough to tell me that:

When adapted to digital and wide open it's very soft
If you're worried about sharpness it's much better by f2.0
But at that point, you're better off sticking with the smaller, lighter 50 1.8.

So I'd just say it's a good lens that's best used on a film body

 

[wblynch]

I like it's dreamy quality. The eight aperture blades produce a nice bokeh.

My tip is to always use a lens hood with OM Zuiko lenses (except at night. for some reason they don't seem to help much at night...)

 

[Tejasican]

My tip is to always use a lens hood with OM Zuiko lenses (except at night. for some reason they don't seem to help much at night...)

Yes, a hood makes a world of difference.

 

[Gregoyle]

It's the only lens I use on my OMs. I looked for a while and found a >1.1 million serial number. I don't know if that actually makes a difference. The impression I get is that the design is the same, but the coatings change. I think any non-silvernose will likely give similar results.

It's the smallest 50mm f/1.4 that I've ever seen. It is smaller than many 50mm f/1.8s on other systems. I've found it to be decent at f/1.4, darn sharp at f/2, and ridiculously razor sharp at f/2.8 and above. The bokeh is quite pleasant. I think this photo was at f/2:

 

[jcb4718]

I have the Zuiko f1.8 and the f1.4. Like most lenses they are pushing their limits when used wide open. The f1.8 at f1.8 vignettes slightly and this has a knock on effect on the bokeh. It vignettes because light passing through the lens at an angle (i.e. destined for the edge of the image) is 'clipped' by the bore of the lens. This produces the vignetting and OOF highlights that look like flattened donuts swirling about the centre of the image. The f1.4 has a much bigger bore (30mm dia. vs 22mm dia. for the f1.8) so, at f2 (=f1.8 for all practical purposes), all the light passes through the lens cleanly: the bokeh is everywhere much nicer (i.e. OOF highlights are rounder and more uniform); also there is no vignetting. This is is the kind of difference you will see plainly in any print, even a 6x4 print, but any differences in sharpness you will have to look harder to see. So I bought the f1.4 to provide better bokeh and vignetting at f2 vs. the f1.8 lens at f1.8 i.e. at practically the same aperture. If course there's always f1.4 if you need to push the limit. The difference in size and weight etc. is insignificant.

Finally for some reason the bokeh at each aperture is more pronounced for the f1.4 lens. f4 for the f1.4 lens is about a fuzzy as f2.8 for the f1.8 lens, and so on for all the apertures. Not sure what is going on but it is quite noticeable.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I recently bought and sent an early 50mm 1.4 back for exchange based on worse-than-expected condition.

That said, the photos that I took with it for the couple days I had it were enough to tell me that:

When adapted to digital and wide open it's very soft
If you're worried about sharpness it's much better by f2.0
But at that point, you're better off sticking with the smaller, lighter 50 1.8.

So I'd just say it's a good lens that's best used on a film body

On 5Dc wide open.

I didn't find it to be very soft on digital. It just not so easy to nail it in focus at closer distances, plus focus shift.

 

[Noll]

Looks like you've got a good copy - glad to hear it's working out for you. The softness I was seeing might get down to some of the old vs new version differences.

And perhaps my cheap m4/3 adapter with a semi-gloss interior wasn't helping with the overall softness, but it's hard to say right now. Still waiting for the replacement...

 

[Marihino]

few examples of my shots with a Zuiko 50mm/1.4
I've got both a silvernose and a MC version, use them pretty much equally and don't notice any difference in image quality. Not saying there isn't any, just my shooting technique lacks are probably greater than lenses' imperfections.

 

[Noll]

My replacement 50mm 1.4 arrived (lucked out on the newer "MC" version), and it did not disappoint wide open even on digital, so take my original comment to apply to an original "silvernose" copy of this lens which also had a ton of dust inside and a very loose focusing ring.

If anyone wants to see a comparison between the two I might be able to replicate a few of the shots taken with the first copy.

 

[Tom Diaz]

I used to be a real OM devotee. However, I didn't think this lens was very good. I have a picture over there on my wall which is lovely (I don't think I have a digital version handy or I would post it), but it's one of those things people describe as "painterly" or "dreamy." In other words, not very sharp wide open. The picture is really nice (one of those times when I knew it was going to be good), but it is really not critically sharp, and that's mostly the lens. Mine was from the mid-1980s; not sure what version it was.

Really, if you are currently using an f/1.8 Zuiko, I'd advise you to stick with it. Another stop of speed is a big deal if you are into low light, but ....

To