OM, I've become a Zuikoholic!

Zuikos are prone to fungus?

ok...

I don't care, really. One thing I know for sure is that my 8-some-odd zuikos are (and have been) fungus-free, and no, I do not put them in a cedar humidor cabinet.

And yes, this part of Texas is humid in the summer months.

:D
 
Last edited:
gosh, and i thought leica folk were passionate. ;)

It is easier to be passionate when you've plunked thousands of dollars into a brand.

To be passionate about something much cheaper takes... well, a bit more facts than mystique. :p
 
I own Zuiko glass since June 1982. The only lens with fungus I ever owned was a Helios-44M-4, 2/58, #87189891, made in the now defunct USSR. Came attached to a Zenit z11.
 
I've bought two quite late OM lenses within a few weeks time with fungus: one 50/1.8 SN on body, one 50/1.4 SN 1,1xx,xxx - both less than 20 years old.
Compared to my other Japanese lenses, most of them 40-50 years old they are prone to fungus, yes.
Pen F Zuiko lenses are not.
 
a statistics professor could set this straight, but i don't think anecdotal evidence based on personal experience which involves a relatively small sample size, can produce a valid conclusion to the question of whether olympus lenses are more or less prone to fungus than other brands. just saying.
 
I spend one day each week browsing around in the used camera shops here in Japan; there are dozens of these shops, and they sell pretty much anything and everything.

Besides OM gear, I also shoot Nikon, Leica, Canon, Mamiya, Yashica, and large format. I am always on the hunt for curious items or good deals. I've looked at hundreds of cameras this year, and perhaps thousands of lenses, and I'll be the first to tell you that fungus is not at all common on Zuiko glass. In hundreds of examples, I've found only 2 Zuiko lenses with visible fungus, and one of these lenses was mounted to an old OM1 which was literally corroded into a greenish color.

I can't count how many Canon lenses I have come across with fungus in them. It is nearly universally present in the FD lenses which I find in the "bargain" bins. It's less common in Nikon glass, but it's still more common in Nikon lenses than in Zuikos. It's a shame that Canon lenses get so much fungus, my Canon collection is larger than my OM collection, and I love to use my old F1.

Fungus is also a problem in Rodenstock lenses, 3 of the last 5 used lenses which I have looked at had fungus present in them.

Fungus is not a common issue in Olympus Zuiko lenses.
 
I would assume that fungus has much more to do with the cases the lenses/cameras were stored in than with the lenses themselves.

Maybe Canon (or whatever brand) lenses are stored more often in leather cases than others ?
 
I would assume that fungus has much more to do with the cases the lenses/cameras were stored in than with the lenses themselves.

Maybe Canon (or whatever brand) lenses are stored more often in leather cases than others ?

Old Olympus and Canon cameras and lenses both come with similar types of cases, so I don't blame the cases for the problem. The fungus problem is especially bad in Japan due to the climate, which is hot and humid in the summer, and the houses, which are rather poorly insulated. The smell of moldy wood is pervasive in older neighborhoods, and some of the cameras and lenses I find smell moldy as well, whether or not they have any visible fungus.

Camera stores here tend to place packets of silica gel in display cases, as the humidity sometimes causes mold to grow on even new cameras. I saw a new Toyo 45 field camera with a $10k price tag which had mold growing on the bottom of the bellows!
 
$10K for a Toyo Field? I love my 45A, but even an 8x10 Toyo wouldn't cost that much unless it sported a kick-a$$ lens or a previously undiscovered species of mold!
 
All lenses are made of the same stuff. Is there really any reason to think that certain lenses, housed identically in the same climatic conditions, are more susceptible to fungus than others?
 
And now for something completely different!

And now for something completely different!

OM1, Zuiko 100/2.8, no fungus, Arista 400, XTOL 1:1

4190876931_7f426042fb_b.jpg
 
All lenses are made of the same stuff. Is there really any reason to think that certain lenses, housed identically in the same climatic conditions, are more susceptible to fungus than others?
Coatings. Maybe manufacturing environment.
 
Seeing as this thread seems to have become the standard for all thing Olympus I'll run this idea past everyone.

I'm thinking of dropping one of my OM-1's along with my OM2N and getting an OM-4! I like the advantages of the multi spot metering system and the extra stop of shutter speed would be useful. But where to find a decent OM-4 ... I don't have much faith in evilbay these days and I haven't seen an OM-4 in the classifieds for quite a while!

What's a fair price for this camera? Zuiko.com has an OM-4ti for sale but $500.00 is a bit heavy and I can't get excited about the finish!
 
In the USA $250 will get you a nice OM-4 and $400-$500 an OM-4T. I have 3 of the 4T bodies and I think they're worth it when you consider all the problems that many of the older model had with battery drain and such. The 4T also is newer and will be less worn from use.
 
Oh and yes the OM-4 or 4T is an incredible camera. I had an OM-1 I got cheap a few yrs ago and I quickly sold it. Averaging metering is next to useless to me, too much like guessing, I want spot metering. Hell I use a handheld spot meter with my Leica!
 
Man, I just sold my OM-4 in perfect shape for less than $100 a month or so ago. I can tell you for sure don't get the BGN one at KEH. It is beat to hell.
 
I like the idea of am OM-4 too. Been looking on eBay for several weeks now and here in UK prices seem to be going up. A supposed decent body seems to be going for something round the £100 mark with dealers wanting double to triple that.
What I don't really understand is how the multi-spot metering is so much better than single spot metering? I don't treat my Olympus OM as a' point and shoot' camera but rather something for the thinking person. Considering exposure is part of my thinking process but I must admit a single spot metering might sometimes be useful if only to confirm what I have already worked out. But do I really need multi-spot metering? Do I need that feature in a camera, and do I really want to pay for that? Would I actually use the feature if I had it on a camera? I think I can just about resist the feeling that if other guys have it then I have to have it too. Anyway I don't think funds can stand it at present!! Isn't another lens a better and more useful next purchase?
Keith - have you used single-spot metering?
Oh - and I hope you find a minty OM-4Ti in your Christmas stocking!

jesse
 
I like the idea of am OM-4 too. Been looking on eBay for several weeks now and here in UK prices seem to be going up. A supposed decent body seems to be going for something round the £100 mark with dealers wanting double to triple that.
What I don't really understand is how the multi-spot metering is so much better than single spot metering? I don't treat my Olympus OM as a' point and shoot' camera but rather something for the thinking person. Considering exposure is part of my thinking process but I must admit a single spot metering might sometimes be useful if only to confirm what I have already worked out. But do I really need multi-spot metering? Do I need that feature in a camera, and do I really want to pay for that? Would I actually use the feature if I had it on a camera? I think I can just about resist the feeling that if other guys have it then I have to have it too. Anyway I don't think funds can stand it at present!! Isn't another lens a better and more useful next purchase?
Keith - have you used single-spot metering?
Oh - and I hope you find a minty OM-4Ti in your Christmas stocking!

jesse


The closest I've come was an M5 which was very good!

Chris can correct me if I'm wrong I'm sure but doesn't the OM-4 have the ability to take a shadow reading and a highlight reading and provide you with the correct exposure ... or at least what it thinks is the correct exposure.

Spot is definitely more precise ... when shooting still life subjects I often walk right up to them to get a direct reading from a particular area with a reflective meter ... spot will save me a lot of walking! :p
 
Keith - download the manual/handbook. It will probably answer that question about shadow/highlight readings.

jesse
 
Back
Top Bottom