Koni Kowa
Well-known
I've had some Zuiko lenses until now.
Two 50mm f/1.8 and two 35mm f/2 had light to strong fungus.
I never had fungus in any other lens so I agree some Zuiko have to be prone to fungus.
By the way, I always found the 35mm f/2 to be such an ugly lens. I wonder if any of you could show me a really good picture taken with this lens (a nice close portrait, for example). To me, as far as I see, it has an ugly contrast and it's not sharp. BW rendition was 'burp', colors were unsignificant. MY experience of course.
Two 50mm f/1.8 and two 35mm f/2 had light to strong fungus.
I never had fungus in any other lens so I agree some Zuiko have to be prone to fungus.
By the way, I always found the 35mm f/2 to be such an ugly lens. I wonder if any of you could show me a really good picture taken with this lens (a nice close portrait, for example). To me, as far as I see, it has an ugly contrast and it's not sharp. BW rendition was 'burp', colors were unsignificant. MY experience of course.
Last edited:
nikku
Well-known
One of my flickr contacts has a few good examples taken with the 35/2:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21053413@N07/3904800863/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21053413@N07/3921826156/
That said, I prefer my Nikkor-O 35/2 non ai to the Zuiko 35/2.8 that I had.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21053413@N07/3904800863/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21053413@N07/3921826156/
That said, I prefer my Nikkor-O 35/2 non ai to the Zuiko 35/2.8 that I had.
George S.
How many is enough?
Andy, I can't say enough good things about the 85/2 and others will also point out the merits of the 90/2 Macro and the 100/2.... 50/1.4 50/1.2 and 55/1.2 are also excellent.... Don't ignore the very low priced common 50/1.8. Look for a "Made in Japan" marked version. You already have 28mm covered, and I also like the 35/2. Never have tried the 24s, would like to.
George S.
How many is enough?
Not better than original b/c there is no original offered, but I feel worth a look are the Vivitar Series 1 28-90 and the Tokina 24-40 zooms.
Peter_Jones
Well-known
Someone mention the Zuiko 28/2.8 ? 
Sonnar2
Well-known
Great pic taken with the 28/2.8!
The expensive 40/2 is prone to fungus too (same era, late lens)
Just check the offerings.
It probabably depends on glass types and coatings, and/or manufacturing.
Some are prone, some are not. I know of NO Pentax lens with fungus problems. Nikon: very rare.
On 1950's glass it is quite common, but normally not on 1980's. The older the glass is, the more it occurs. Quite bad for 1980's lenses.
The expensive 40/2 is prone to fungus too (same era, late lens)
Just check the offerings.
It probabably depends on glass types and coatings, and/or manufacturing.
Some are prone, some are not. I know of NO Pentax lens with fungus problems. Nikon: very rare.
On 1950's glass it is quite common, but normally not on 1980's. The older the glass is, the more it occurs. Quite bad for 1980's lenses.
Last edited:
George S.
How many is enough?
I don't know where you're getting your (mis)information from, but quite a few people have already commented here that their own experience does not support your claims with regard to Zuikos and fungus. I've been buying/selling/collecting/buying/selling Zuikos since the mid 70's and I don't see any fungus issues. I would say that ANY manufacturer's lenses that are by now 25, 30, 35 years old, that their condition with regard to fungus has more to do with the conditions they were stored in by their owners and what part of the world (humidity) than anything else.
And I think the 40/2 was an earlier Zuiko not a later one as you state.
Koni Kowa
Well-known
Thank you Chris. Nice pics but too contrasty for me. I don't know if it's the lens, the film or the development on your pics, but mine they were all too contrasty, with no details in the white areas due to the lens. Indeed not a great 35mm. I've heard the 35mm f/2.8 was better.
Sonnar2
Well-known
Just check the offerings, compare with other brands, and look what users write. If none of your lenses have fungus, I hope for you that it will keep so.
Of course for OM-isti, Leica-isti, Nikon-isti etc. their favorite brand have NO weaknesses at all, everything is just great. My view is just a little wider.
To the age of the 40/2. I think 1984 as a starting date can be considered as "late" in conjunction to the OM system.
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
If my pics look too contrasty, your screen isn't calibrated right or maybe even cannot display the full range. Most LCDs cannot. A lot of guys here using cheap uncalibrated screens have told me my stuff is too contrasty. It doesn't on my screen or on my prints. I have a self-calibrating NEC screen, one of their high-end graphics screens. Cost more than my Mac did! The snowcone stand is in snow and there is full texture in the snow on my screen and in my prints.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Might be the climate where you are. In the northern USA where I live it is extremely uncommon to find a lens by ANY maker that has fungus. I've only seen three in my life. Two were soviet lenses that were beat up badly (someone gave them to me) and were probably stored in humid conditions. The other was a no-name cheapie early 1980's zoom for Canon FD mount. I've never seen a modern lens by any of the camera makers (leica, Olympus, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Hasselblad/Zeiss) that had fungus, ever. I worked at a camera store for a while and saw hundreds of used lenses and not one ever had a hint of fungus from any manufacturer.
Koni Kowa
Well-known
MacBook Pro calibrated. It's my feelings, not my screen.
I did not mean to insult you.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
MacBook Pro calibrated. It's my feelings, not my screen.
I did not mean to insult you.
Sorry, but macbook pro screens are not that accurate, calibration or not. I've seen and attempted to calibrate a number of them for friends. They are not made for critical graphics work, no laptop is, no matter what the hype in the ads. A good graphics screen alone costs about what your whole computer did, sometimes more. I do graphics work for a living and clients with laptops are one of my biggest frustrations because they insist on judging images on them and when you're doing print production work that simply doesn't work. The proof from the printer shows different and always shocks the hell out of them.
Koni Kowa
Well-known
Hey Chris, your pics upon are not what they can call 'critical graphics work', anyway. Again, it's all about feelings, not about screen. Look at the snow in the first pic, look at the sky in the others : that's what I call too contrasty.
wgerrard
Veteran
Anecdotal reports, as posted here and elsewhere, can't be used to make a definitive statement about lenses, or cameras, or much of anything else.
For example, to determine if Zuiko lenses are, in fact, more prone to acquire fungus than another brand, one would, at a minimum, need to go back 30 years, acquire multiple samples of each lens in each line, store and use them under identical conditions for three decades, and then assess the amount of fungus on the lenses. (This requires, of course, an accurate way to measure the fungus-to-glass ratio on each lens.)
In the real world, so many variables that might impact fungus formation exist that little can be taken from anecdotal reports, one way or the other.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Hey Chris, your pics upon are not what they can call 'critical graphics work', anyway. Again, it's all about feelings, not about screen. Look at the snow in the first pic, look at the sky in the others : that's what I call too contrasty.
I sort of have to agree with Koni Kowa here so obviously my screen is crap as well ... I find the contrast in those pics too high for my tastes ... but as KK said it is a personal thing!
Sonnar2
Well-known
No, as a user I don't need that kind of "scientific reports" made with 1000 lenses, because I may have the 0.1% bad ones. If I see 10 of one kind at ebay, 2 announced with "beginning fungus", 2 of them "slight haze -could need a cleaning" = sellers words for fungus in real world, some camera shop people pretend not to know what fungus is, or be blind on both eyes - enough evidence for me as a user. Of course, in fan forums everything about the brand is great - except for "anecdotical reports".
Other item, or other brand: 10 of a kind at ebay too: NONE with fungus, nor haze.
Any unclear decision?
PS, I forget one lens when saying Pentax had no problems: a 1970's late SMC Takumar 50/1.8 is prone to fungus too (rubber version). cheap one.
Of course the climate MAY play a role too, but this is also a common saying to smear evidende. Plus, I've never heard that in particular my home country leads lenses to grow fungus. After all, most research and inventing of glass coating took place here
Last edited:
wgerrard
Veteran
It is unfair and inaccurate to extrapolate from personal experience to make a broad judgment about an entire product line. The guy next to you may have 0.1% fungus-free lenses. Would he be right to conclude that no Zuiko lens ever acquires fungus?
Looking for accuracy at eBay seems an especially risky endeavor.
Then I suspect you are using random anecdotal stories to bolster an existing bias.
[EDIT: On a "fan forum" every report of personal experience with a lens or a camera is, by definition, anecdotal. including yours.]
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Hey Chris, your pics upon are not what they can call 'critical graphics work', anyway. Again, it's all about feelings, not about screen. Look at the snow in the first pic, look at the sky in the others : that's what I call too contrasty.
I looked at your flickr page. Most of the photos look too dark on my screen. I think they probably look fine on yours, based on your evaluation of my shots. Your screen is brighter than mine, which is why your pics look to dark to me and mine have blown highlights on yours. My pics actually are critical graphics work. I license many of them as stock photos, and the art directors who buy them have screen calibrated like mine. They demand that the file I give them matches the version they saw on my website and that it match in print as well. If they don't match, I don't get paid. I don't get paid, my son and I don't eat!
Koni Kowa
Well-known
Chris... it is about personnal feelings. Pleaaaase... I never said your pics were no good : I like them. We're only talking about contrast. Keep calm and don't start talking about life and people who can eat thanks to a calibrated screen. Please.
I'm here for pleasure and sharing. I think we all are. Forgive me if I did not say the right things : I'm not a native english speaker at all and I may have failed to say what I wanted to say.
Let's go back to Zuiko things, ok ?
I'm here for pleasure and sharing. I think we all are. Forgive me if I did not say the right things : I'm not a native english speaker at all and I may have failed to say what I wanted to say.
Let's go back to Zuiko things, ok ?