OM, I've become a Zuikoholic!

Keith said:
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!
Click to expand...

On my iMac, those photos do look more contrasty than others I recall from Chris. Perhaps images of snow are especially likely to be affected by the information loss involved in processing them for display here.

Chris is right about variations in displays across different monitors. For a pro, or anyone who wants quality prints, a calibrated high quality monitor is a necessity. Some will likely argue that LCD's are capable of that high quality display, but I doubt if many would argue that top-of-the-line CRT's are not.

For those of us who post images online for others to peer at, we just have to accept that they will look a little different to everyone.
 
Sonnar2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't automatically group me like that or assume your view is wider than mine. I assure you it is not.
Also, ebay is the worst possible place for you to draw any conclusions from. there are way too many bottom feeders grabbing 'estate pieces' that have been lying in a dark camera bag for years and flipping them to unsuspecting buyers. No one knows or will admit as to where or how a piece (lens in this case) was stored. Far too many variables involved 35 years after a lens was made to draw any conclusions with regard to fungus. Most ebay sellers couldn't even tell you what fungus looks like.

I have found reference to the 40/2 in early 1983, 11 years into the 25 year run of the OM system. I wouldn't call that a late introduction.
 
1. There are no much OM lenses introduced later than the 40/2 that's I call late. You may call it as you like.
2. Maybe Olympus lenses are very often badly stored over years, much more than Pentax, Nikon or Zeiss glass, rarely developing fungus. You are free to believe that. Not me. I don't discuss indivdual believes, just facts. Thanks
 
Last edited:
Hey, cool it guys!
I come here for fun and information not to read individuals squabbles!
Tomorrow is another day, another chance to enjoy life and our photography, its a complete mystery what might turn up.
I want to look forward to reading positive things not some postings in this thread.
jesse
 
I finally have a working Olympus Body. It was missing the knob on the rewind crank, and now has one from a Canonet QL19. The knob and screw for the knob fit well. Thread size was the same, and reverse threaded at that.

Now I need a lens, and find this thread.

The pictures from the 35/2 look good to me, but the image size is small.

I'm thinking of starting with a 50/1.4. I sold off a pair of Oly lenses, a 28/3.5 and 135/3.5 for $75 after the second body died on the first day I had it. Just like the first one. This OM-1n MD is near mint, and looks in good working condition. Hopefully I will get some use from it.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
I finally have a working Olympus Body. It was missing the knob on the rewind crank, and now has one from a Canonet QL19. The knob and screw for the knob fit well. Thread size was the same, and reverse threaded at that.

Now I need a lens, and find this thread.

The pictures from the 35/2 look good to me, but the image size is small.

I'm thinking of starting with a 50/1.4. I sold off a pair of Oly lenses, a 28/3.5 and 135/3.5 for $75 after the second body died on the first day I had it. Just like the first one. This OM-1n MD is near mint, and looks in good working condition. Hopefully I will get some use from it.
Click to expand...




I think the 50mm f1.4 would be a great choice and don't be put off by the hype about the early vesrsions being inferior ...

... come to think of it who am I to tell you anything about lenses! :p
 
Koni Kowa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Chris' photos have high contrast. But that is his preference, not caused by the lens.

I find the 35/2 can do low contrast actually. See these samples:

3775411096_89d0df95e8_o.jpg

High contrast

3775410682_040e45a10f_o.jpg

Not so high contrast

3786842152_93ba9c78df_o.jpg

Lower contrast

I have quite a few 35/2 lenses from other brands including Zeiss and Nikon. Trust me, the Zuiko 35/2 is no slouch.

I am absolutely puzzled by the so-called reviewers who said that this lens is not good.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for those photos, ShadowFox : they look perfect on my screen... I mean they match with my taste. ;)
 
Last edited:
A couple of images with the 35mm f2 ... it's not particularly sharp wide open but overall I like it a lot!


mtnebstud_14.jpg




lightpaint_2.jpg
 
Woha ! Ok, then I'll buy this lens that makes women get off their clothes... :D
Seriously, the last one is a pure beauty and it reminds me the Willy Ronis nudes.
 
Last edited:
Koni Kowa said:
Woha ! Ok, then I'll buy this lens that makes women get off their clothes... :D
Seriously, the last one is a pure beauty and it reminds me the Willy Ronis nudes.
Click to expand...


So you're not put off by the contrast between the two pics then? :D
 
Getting back to the main subject of the thread here's a little trivia about my two 50mm Zuiko lenses ... f1.2 and f1.4

Set them both at f2 and fit them to the same camera (not both at once obviously! :D) and you get a slightly different meter reading between the two lenses ... somewhere between a third and a half a stop difference. That 1.2 is definitely letting more light through at f2 than the f1.4 at the same aperture! :eek:
 
JSU said:
Keith--

Given both are 50mm lenses, you should be able to see a difference in the diameter of the aperture at F-2.0, particularly viewed through the rear element. Have you set both lenses to F-2.0 and visually compared the size of the diaphragm opening? It is possible that one aperture ring is not actually at a measured F-2.0. It would be interesting to shoot comparison images from a body locked down on a tripod of a measuring stick projecting on a line away from the body to illustrate the delivered DoF for each lens at F-2.0.

This is a subjective analysis, the alternative is to understand the foibles of a given piece of kit and enjoy the plusses and work around the minuses.

--Steve
Click to expand...


I assume that as long as the camera they are mounted on is metering accurately it doesn't really matter a damn. I also suspect that if you were able to meter a variety of lenses from various manufacturers of a specific focal length at a nominated aperture this would be a fairly common occurence.

Sounds to me like a good project for 'Raid!' :D
 
I agree with Keith. There are differences not only between different manufacturers but there are differences between samples of the same lens by a manufacturer. I've always heard that all lenses are "allowed" to vary from their stated focal length and aperture by up to 10%. I'll assume that that 10% variation is what causes a small meter reading difference.
 
Last edited:
George

10% difference sounds a very large diffrence to me.
I presume that would be 10% either way from a nominal 50mm focal length - 45mm to 55mm distribution from minimum to maximum with most grouped round the 50mm.

jesse
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom