-Nash-
Established
Gah, i've stumbled across this thread and now I seriously miss my OM3.
Why did I sell yuuuu!
If you were the chap who bought it, tell me she's doing okay.
(OM3, 50mm 1.4)
(OM1, 50mm 1.8)
(OM1, 40mm 2)
Why did I sell yuuuu!
If you were the chap who bought it, tell me she's doing okay.
(OM3, 50mm 1.4)
(OM1, 50mm 1.8)
(OM1, 40mm 2)
135formatuser
Member
Nice Photo's
I have a problem with my new OM2 and T20 flash...
Both Seem to be working properly but accordingly to the manual of the T20 if i set my camera to automatic and put my flash in automatic and that little flas button on the body to X..
There should be a light flashing in my viewfinder... BUT there is not..
Does anybody know what the problem might be?
And yes i have the Flash Shoe 3
I have a problem with my new OM2 and T20 flash...
Both Seem to be working properly but accordingly to the manual of the T20 if i set my camera to automatic and put my flash in automatic and that little flas button on the body to X..
There should be a light flashing in my viewfinder... BUT there is not..
Does anybody know what the problem might be?
And yes i have the Flash Shoe 3
T
tedwhite
Guest
Does an OM1 have a light meter? I see a very brassy black one with a 50/1.4 coming up on ebay.
Ted
Ted
Jerevan
Recycled User
al1966
Feed Your Head
Yes it does but it uses the old mercury battery, I use a hearing aid battery with a ring round it and it gets the meter close enough. Note the newer 1.5v batteries put the meter well out.
al1966
Feed Your Head
Oh and the 1.4 is a nice lens, a very nice lens.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Does that happen no matter what aperture you set on the lens?
CVickery
Established
Thanks JSU
135formatuser
Member
philosomatographer
Well-known
Well, the Zuiko 40mm I recently got is gorgeous. Image quality, I mean. This is a seriously good lens. It's a bit flare-prone if the sun shines directly on the front element at oblique angles (I don't have a hood for it), but even at f/2 and right at minimum focusing distance, it's an impressive performer. This lens appears to be almost completely corrected for chromatic aberration, even in out-of-focus areas. I am impressed!
(OM-3Ti, Zuiko 40mm @ f/2.0, Kodak Portra 400 VC)
Great colour saturation, and subject isolation. This shows the flare if direct sunlight hits the front element from the side, but I really like the rendering:
(OM-3Ti, Zuiko 40mm @ f/2.0, Kodal Portra 400 VC)
Well, these were just two random images from a test roll of colour film (I never shoot colour, ever - this is practically my first roll in 35mm format). I'll post a couple of images captured with some other Zuikos in following posts.
(OM-3Ti, Zuiko 40mm @ f/2.0, Kodak Portra 400 VC)
Great colour saturation, and subject isolation. This shows the flare if direct sunlight hits the front element from the side, but I really like the rendering:
(OM-3Ti, Zuiko 40mm @ f/2.0, Kodal Portra 400 VC)
Well, these were just two random images from a test roll of colour film (I never shoot colour, ever - this is practically my first roll in 35mm format). I'll post a couple of images captured with some other Zuikos in following posts.
philosomatographer
Well-known
Zuiko 50mm f/1.4
Zuiko 50mm f/1.4
Especially visible in colour images - which are quite "new" to me as B&W photographer - the Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 (yes yes, obligatory greater-than-1.1million serial number) is an incredible performer. Never mind the fact that, in tests, it outperforms the previous-generation Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4 (the best Leica had for 30+ years...) but just look at your own images. Remarkable edge-to-edge performance. All three shot wide open (extremely poor light, 1/15s or less shutter speed, hand-held):
Zuiko 50mm f/1.4
Especially visible in colour images - which are quite "new" to me as B&W photographer - the Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 (yes yes, obligatory greater-than-1.1million serial number) is an incredible performer. Never mind the fact that, in tests, it outperforms the previous-generation Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4 (the best Leica had for 30+ years...) but just look at your own images. Remarkable edge-to-edge performance. All three shot wide open (extremely poor light, 1/15s or less shutter speed, hand-held):
Anybody who says they need a better 50mm - ever - is lying I have quite a problem - I can't decide to walk around with the 50mm or the 40mm. But when you need f/1.4, the 50mm is as good as can reasonably be expected from any such lens.
I have very little respect for the infamous Ken Rockwell, but one of his observations (which he applies to Nikon lenses) seems to be true. It goes something like this:
"The cosmetic condition of a lens is usually inversely proportional to its optical performance"
i.e. a copy of a lens that is perticularly good, will have had the heck used out of them. This has certainly applied to my previous very beat-up 24/2.0, and certainly also to my 50/1.4, which looks like it's been through a war.
I have quite a problem - I can't decide to walk around with the 50mm or the 40mm. But when you need f/1.4, the 50mm is as good as can reasonably be expected from any such lens.I have very little respect for the infamous Ken Rockwell, but one of his observations (which he applies to Nikon lenses) seems to be true. It goes something like this:
"The cosmetic condition of a lens is usually inversely proportional to its optical performance"
i.e. a copy of a lens that is perticularly good, will have had the heck used out of them. This has certainly applied to my previous very beat-up 24/2.0, and certainly also to my 50/1.4, which looks like it's been through a war.
philosomatographer
Well-known
(OM-3Ti, Zuiko 250mm @ f/2.0, Kodak Portra 400 VC)
If you really pixel-peep (grain-peep?), my copy of the 250/2 unfortunately shows some (gentle, but quite visible) chromatic aberration around very high-contrast edges such as in the photo above, but it's subtle enough to not show up on a 800px web image (thank goodness).
In this respect, it's not in the same league as the latest Canon/Nikon 200/300mm fast lenses, which are absolutely perfect (aberration-free) under these same conditions.
Still not bad for a 30-year design that pushed the boundaries. And, I have (for obvious reasons) not been able to test multiple samples. Mine needs a serious internal cleaning, but I don't know who'd have the guts to open this lens up.
At the time, even John Hermanson made comments indicating that, unless absolutely necessary, he'd prefer to not disassemble a lens like this.
135formatuser
Member
Soon i will post some pictures from my new OM2 and 35-70 F4 lens but for now i have (yes another) question!
I want to buy a 35mm lens but my budget is limited..
I have now seen a 35 F2,8 Vivitar lens for 35 euro's
Is this a good price? how does this lens compare to the Zuiko 35F2.8 in sharpness en importantly size because a want to keep my set nice and compact..
Compactness is not something the designers had in mind when designing the 35-70 btw...
I want to buy a 35mm lens but my budget is limited..
I have now seen a 35 F2,8 Vivitar lens for 35 euro's
Is this a good price? how does this lens compare to the Zuiko 35F2.8 in sharpness en importantly size because a want to keep my set nice and compact..
Compactness is not something the designers had in mind when designing the 35-70 btw...
kemal_mumcu
Well-known
Zeiss to OM adapter's???
Zeiss to OM adapter's???
I hope this doesn't sound heretical, but I've been wondering if there is a effective way to mount one of Zeiss' newer wides onto an Olympus OM body. Does anyone know if such an adaptor ever existed? I've done some web searching but I haven't really come up with anything. I did hear that at one time people could mount Leica R mounts on OM's but I digress. Zeiss has some nice wide angle high speed lenses that would be fun to use on an OM. Like the 28/2 or 25/2. I know Zuiko produced equivelents but I've found modern wides generally outperform older wides. And lets face it, the zuiko lens designs aren't getting any younger.
Zeiss to OM adapter's???
I hope this doesn't sound heretical, but I've been wondering if there is a effective way to mount one of Zeiss' newer wides onto an Olympus OM body. Does anyone know if such an adaptor ever existed? I've done some web searching but I haven't really come up with anything. I did hear that at one time people could mount Leica R mounts on OM's but I digress. Zeiss has some nice wide angle high speed lenses that would be fun to use on an OM. Like the 28/2 or 25/2. I know Zuiko produced equivelents but I've found modern wides generally outperform older wides. And lets face it, the zuiko lens designs aren't getting any younger.
135formatuser
Member
I have found on the web that the OM has a very big register distance zo i dont really think there were much adapters for other mount because even the populair FD and Nikon F mount had shorter register distances if i remember correctly?
If this has nothing to do with the usage of zeiss lensen on OM camera's im sorry!
If this has nothing to do with the usage of zeiss lensen on OM camera's im sorry!
gliderbee
Well-known
I don't think it 's a good idea; you should go for a Zuiko 35/2.8; it will cost you more, but you will not regret it, and if you ever want to sell it agan, you'll be able to get your money back. They often come up on German eBay (and others probably also).
Stefan.
Liquid-Sky
Unregistered consumer
@philosomatographer,
nice pictures and glad you like the 40mm, for the hood i use the metal one for the 85f2 or 100f2.8 which is the same size as the original rubber hood.
For daily use i go with the 40f2 with ektar 100 and for low light go with the 40 & 50 with portra 400 or 800.
nice pictures and glad you like the 40mm, for the hood i use the metal one for the 85f2 or 100f2.8 which is the same size as the original rubber hood.
For daily use i go with the 40f2 with ektar 100 and for low light go with the 40 & 50 with portra 400 or 800.
philosomatographer
Well-known
Not possible, unfortunately. The OM flange-to-film distance is greater than that of most 35mm SLR systems - no space for an adaptor, and you'd need pretty specialised surgery to make one of the Zeiss lenses fit.
This is not just brand loyalty talking, but there really isn't much reason to desire the modern Zeiss lenses on the OM system. The Zuiko 21mm f/2.0 and 24mm f/2.0 are honestly not outperformed in practical terms, considering that you are shooting 35mm film. Olympus' true speciality was making small, ultra-high performance wide angle lenses - the joy of the OM system just wouldn't be the same without it.
The Zeiss lenses are beastly giants (look at the Distagon 21mm f/2.8! A full stop slower, and more distortion to boot. Oh, and they generally feel like cheap 1970s third-party off-brand lenses in terms of build quality, compared to real Zuikos or Nikkors).
If you really want to shoot the Zeiss lenses on film, pick up a Nikon F with plain prism. Beautiful, any OM-1 lover cannot disagree with it, exceptionally well-built (will crush an OM, if it wanted to), and just that bit larger to fit well with the giant Zeiss lenses. Oh, and cheap!
Ask yourself - what compelling feature does any OM body have to even think of a cumbersome off-brand lens mounting solution? And you'd definitely not have auto-aperture, etc. I can't think of any...
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I mostly agree with that, but it's still fun. I sometimes use an M42 lens on my OM via adapter. There's no infinity focus, but it's kinda cool for closeups, a different look, etc.
T
tedwhite
Guest
So, if I want to buy an OM1, as I originally thought about, which OM should I now consider, seeing as the original had a mercury battery which is no longer allowed. I guess what I'm asking is this: Which one of the OM series would you folks suggest? I've been a Pentax Spotmatic guy for decades, and I've been intrigued reading this forum and I'm wondering if switching to the OM's would be of value?