OM, I've become a Zuikoholic!

Finally got some Velvia 50 back that I shot in an OM2 a month back or so:

velvia-Scan-120526-0013-XL.jpg


velvia-Scan-120526-0009-XL.jpg


velvia-Scan-120526-0004-XL.jpg


Best,

Roland.
 
Roland, what lens? also interested in the EI you shot at and any filter usage.

I ask because it looks so cool compared to what I expect from velvia 50 shots; really lovely.

actually, I like velvia 50 a ton. but I like it in low contrast lighting where it's great greens and high resolving power shine. it can get a bit garish if you let it.

funny enough Ive only ever shot it one time in 35mm. I should buy some.
 
paulfish4570 said:
keith, barrel distortion for the 50/1.8? i suppose i shall have to photograph a barrel to see this phenomenon myself ... 🙂
Click to expand...


Try photographing something with parallel vertical lines towards the edge of the frame at a meter distance wide open!

My 35mm 1.2 Nokton is nearly as bad amazingly.

Easily corrected in post luckily but I'm amazed how many high quality lenses do it! 🙂
 
some great shots roland, Velvia is fantastic, I switched back to slidefilm for film-colour work recently, besides a couple of colour-negative in point-and-shoots, slidefilm gives me the colours I'm after. Otherwise I shoot mainly BW film, were they shot with your new 40 ?

keith, look for and original Series 2- Olympus screen (I guess 2-4 is the one you are after), getting the beatty will keep you're brain too busy, not having the real thing 🙂
got a 2-13 in my om-3 and couldn't be happier, the finder is brighter than my eyeview.

for the distortion of the 50 1.8 it's there, but not as bad as I would have been bothered by it, If you're looking for complete distorition perfection look for an 50/2 macro or the smaller 50/3.5 brother, both are stellar and sharp.
 
maitani said:
some great shots roland, Velvia is fantastic, I switched back to slidefilm for film-colour work recently, besides a couple of colour-negative in point-and-shoots, slidefilm gives me the colours I'm after. Otherwise I shoot mainly BW film, were they shot with your new 40 ?

keith, look for and original Series 2- Olympus screen (I guess 2-4 is the one you are after), getting the beatty will keep you're brain too busy, not having the real thing 🙂
got a 2-13 in my om-3 and couldn't be happier, the finder is brighter than my eyeview.

for the distortion of the 50 1.8 it's there, but not as bad as I would have been bothered by it, If you're looking for complete distorition perfection look for an 50/2 macro or the smaller 50/3.5 brother, both are stellar and sharp.
Click to expand...


The 2-4 screen is definitely the one I want but finding one could be tricky ... certainly nothing on eBay currently!

And I would prefer to keep my OM-3 pure Olympus! 😀
 
redisburning said:
Roland, what lens? also interested in the EI you shot at and any filter usage.

I ask because it looks so cool compared to what I expect from velvia 50 shots; really lovely.
Click to expand...

Thanks all. RIB, this is the classic Velvia 50, shot @50 ASA with a Zuiko 28/2 and a Vivitar 90/2.5 Series 1 ("Bokina"). A Pol filter on the 28. Here are two more from the same roll:

velvia-Scan-120526-0021-XL.jpg


velvia-Scan-120526-0001-XL.jpg


Roland.
 
Keith said:
Try photographing something with parallel vertical lines towards the edge of the frame at a meter distance wide open!

My 35mm 1.2 Nokton is nearly as bad amazingly.

Easily corrected in post luckily but I'm amazed how many high quality lenses do it! 🙂
Click to expand...

distortion is something that lens designers have to live with.

look at the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 distagon which has a huge following, it's exceptionally sharp but to get there the guys at Zeiss had to allow complex mustache distortion.

what would we have to give up to make that small amount of distortion go away? well, probably it would have to not be quite as sharp or perhaps larger.

ferider said:
Thanks all. RIB, this is the classic Velvia 50, shot @50 ASA with a Zuiko 28/2 and a Vivitar 90/2.5 Series 1 ("Bokina"). A Pol filter on the 28.Roland.
Click to expand...

I see. thanks for the info.
 
Back when I first bought my OM, I had to choose between the 28mm and 35mm for wide angle. I certainly could not afford both.

I selected the 28 since it was farther from the 50mm. I don't recall if the 24mm was even in production yet.

I got used to using 28mm all these years and really liked it. It is a normal wide angle to my eye.

A few years ago I got a 24mm and that seems really wiiiide to me. I'm not used to it.

So... now that these lenses are so cheap and I can afford (nearly) any of them, I'm thinking it's time to get a 35mm and see if it wasn't the better choice all along.

Maybe you need more time with the 28 or maybe you would be happier with a 35.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom