OM, I've become a Zuikoholic!

redisburning said:
same one.

it's listed as UG now, which is what it is. When I looked at it, my best guess for what happened is it had been taken apart and not lined up correctly when put back together, causing the aperture pin to be pinched when you focused too closely. I didn't take it apart myself because Im not an expert at such things, but I did write a very detailed letter explaining what was happening and I suppose with that they looked at it.

Like you I had everything refunded. KEH is the best.
Click to expand...

While KEH's return policy is really excellent, I do think that KEH's grading standards are definitely slipping. My last purchase of a BGN grade OM Motor Drive 2 and battery pack resulted in my receiving a motor drive with the guide pin missing and a big dent in the battery pack. I called KEH about this and was told that the condition was consistent with their BGN grade, even though the condition better fit the UG grade.
 
Ade-oh said:
A question for you all. I'm planning to sell one of my OM-4ti's as, I feel, one is enough. It's in reasonable condition with a bit of wear to the paint but it is fitted with the 2-13 focus screen. So what ballpark price range should I be asking? Thanks.
Click to expand...
If you are selling the 2-13 focus screen separately, please let me know. Thanks.
 
Here's a 50/1.4 and 24/2.8 on a Sony A7R

museum_9.jpg


museum_14.jpg
 
I joined the club with a lovely OM2 and 50mm 1.8 MIJ.
I have cleaned the foam from the prism (thrice!), and the camera is now clean.
the focus on the lens was too easy, and irregular, so I added a dab of helical grease, but now it's too heavily damped, and not perfectly even either. I want to see how I like the lens and maybe get it serviced.

Question about the camera: it "rings" like a bell. I see tiny pads of foam on the sides of the screen that "receive" the mirror when it folds up. and these are obviously deteriorating. should I remove/replace them?
 
Most OMs 'ring'. It annoys me as well.

I think it's the aperture operation lever hitting the metal lens mount when it returns. I don't know a fix.

More annoying is the OM-10. When the mirror returns it lands on a little metal tab. The back of the mirror is a plastic and it gives a 'clack'. Worse than the 'ring' from the OM-1/2/3/4.
 
sanmich said:
I joined the club with a lovely OM2 and 50mm 1.8 MIJ.
I have cleaned the foam from the prism (thrice!), and the camera is now clean.
the focus on the lens was too easy, and irregular, so I added a dab of helical grease, but now it's too heavily damped, and not perfectly even either. I want to see how I like the lens and maybe get it serviced.

Question about the camera: it "rings" like a bell. I see tiny pads of foam on the sides of the screen that "receive" the mirror when it folds up. and these are obviously deteriorating. should I remove/replace them?
Click to expand...

Hi,

The foam attacks the silvering on the prism. Most technicians can replace the prism and foam but may not have the parts needed. FWIW, the OM10 prisms fit and there's lots of them about in OM10's...

Regards, David
 
I sourced a new 50/1.2. it's a pity I wont be able to test it properly for a few days still.

it wasn't cheap, but it was reasonable. I suppose after getting both a rokkor 58/1.2 and a zuiko 55/1.2 for under 200 it wasnt going to kill me to pony up a bit for the next 1.2 lens. Ill try and post some 50 vs 55 comparison shots, tho it might be a while.

I guess now it's time to get something other than 50s and 28s; I guess I need the 18/3.5, 21/3.5 and 24/2.8 next. Im sure it will take me the better part of the year to get all 3 as I want MC versions of each. I really like the last Olympus coating; granted it doesnt have the best flare resistance but IMO it's the best color pallet and color distinction wise outside of Leica.

our visual system is very complex and while I will always be the champion of extinction resolutions and contrast levels, I will admit my opinion on the importance of color in lenses has changed as Ive tried more and more brands and seen that what looks the sharpest even in a 2048 isnt always the sharpest at 100% and that color and astigmatism play a much larger role than I would have previously admitted.

I was spoiled from the start with Olympus though, so I never noticed until I started using other brand's lenses.
 
[I guess I need the 18/3.5, 21/3.5 and 24/2.8 next. Im sure it will take me the better part of the year to get all 3 as I want MC versions of each.[/quote]K

Unfortunately, that time frame is probably pretty accurate. I have the 18/3.5 and 24/2.8 that are multi-coated. (Don't have 21/3.5, as I have a 21/2.0). Getting later multi-coated versions of some of the OM lenses that were not originally multi-coated (like the 24/2.8 and 35/2.8 shift) takes time, as they can be pretty rare, do not come up for sale often, and even when they do, are often not advertised as being MC. For example, KEH doesn't specify whether OM lenses are MC or SC versions.

However, the MC versions are typically sharper and contrastier. I had a 24/2.8 SC for years (until it was stolen). It was a good lens, but the 24/2.8 MC that I purchased a few years ago is definitely better and much more flare resistant. I paid a bit of a premium for this lens ($275) but don't regret it. My guess is that MC versions of the 24/2.8 and 21/3.5 make up less than 10% of all the 24/2.8 and 21/3.5 lenses out there, based on the numerous eBay listings I have seen over the years.

However, one can occasionally get lucky. I got a very rare MC 35/2.8 shift lens in pristine condition about two years ago for $475 on eBay. The 35 shift lens is pretty rare to begin with, with asking prices on eBay of around $600-$800 for the typical SC coated versions in good condition. The MC versions are far more rare, probably constituting only about 5% of the OM 35 shift lenses out there. The MC version is far more flare resistant than the SC version (there is a 16:9 article about this) and my copy is very sharp with a very pleasing rendition. I only got this lens for that price as it was not advertised as being MC and the sales description and photos provided on the eBay listing were pretty spartan. (Also got a pristine OM 90/2.0 macro for $500 a few years back that also had a very bare bones sales description on eBay). I had previously lost out on an eBay bid for a 35 shift expressly advertised as being the rare MC version in heavily used, far poorer shape, that went for $875. At the end of the day, saved $400 and got a much better condition lens.

All in all, it is a worthwhile endeavor to hold out for the MC versions, although some serious luck may be involved.
 
faberryman said:
Is there a reference for Zuiko lenses by serial number when MC began?
Click to expand...

It is possible that such a reference exists, but I don't know of it or the particular and different serial numbers that might indicate this by each lens model. However, any lens that bears a letter designation before the word Zuiko -- such as "H. Zuiko" or "E. Zuiko" -- is a single coated lens. The multi-coated lenses typically will not have any letter designation and either say "MC" or make no mention of MC. Also, the single-coated Zuiko 35mm shift lenses bear a designation "F=35mm", which is absent from MC samples. As you can see, Olympus was not the clearest in specifying whether a given lens was MC or not.
 
keith, et al.

please show me your 50/1.2 shots. not being able to use mine until I get back home in a few days is hurting me inside.

also can someone explain to me why the olympus ring flashes are so expensive? people basically give away t20s and t32s these days.
 
well someone got ignored. I wonder who lmao.

anyway initial testing with 50/1.2 is positive.

50/1.2 pros
1. plenty sharp if one of [wide open, close to MFD] is not true
2. fantastic transition to OoF, texture reproduction (low frequency contrast)
3. good bokeh stopped down a bit or at longer distance
4. good correction of LoCA, in fact performance would be considered very good for an f2 lens at f1.2
5. flat field for such a fast lens
6. SMALL, light weight, good construction
7. coating gives acceptable flare resistance, EXCELLENT color balance.

cons
1. poor at MFD wide open
2. vignetting worse than other 1.2 designs (especially Rokkor f1.2 lenses)
3. rare, difficult to source at price near KEH
4. very OoF areas not the best ever

overall verdict: worth the money, but not the best. that goes to 50/2 macro IMO

my tier list of Zuiko 50s, having owned them all

0: 50/2 macro
1: 50/3.5 macro, 50/1.2
2: 55/1.2 (very good at what it does, is misunderstood)
3: 50/1.8, 50/1.4

speaking of 50/2 macro, I would like to say that I run the group for that lens and would very much appreciate anyone's contributions should they have the lens. digital or film or just pictures of the lens, whatever works for you!

http://www.flickr.com/groups/2184059@N25/

sorry to self promote, but I promise the only thing I get out of the group is the satisfaction of having a community around a great lens.
 
this may be digital blasphemy, since this thread is full of incredible film shots with the OMs, but I did start using my 200/5 on the Sony A7 today:


DSC05298 by unoh7, on Flickr

380 grams, and the A7 seems to like it :) It was the smallest lightest 200 I could find for backcountry use. But my 5n did not take to it. Glad I did not sell it.

Great shots and info here.
 
redisburning said:
well someone got ignored. I wonder who lmao.

anyway initial testing with 50/1.2 is positive.

50/1.2 pros
1. plenty sharp if one of [wide open, close to MFD] is not true
2. fantastic transition to OoF, texture reproduction (low frequency contrast)
3. good bokeh stopped down a bit or at longer distance
4. good correction of LoCA, in fact performance would be considered very good for an f2 lens at f1.2
5. flat field for such a fast lens
6. SMALL, light weight, good construction
7. coating gives acceptable flare resistance, EXCELLENT color balance.

cons
1. poor at MFD wide open
2. vignetting worse than other 1.2 designs (especially Rokkor f1.2 lenses)
3. rare, difficult to source at price near KEH
4. very OoF areas not the best ever

overall verdict: worth the money, but not the best. that goes to 50/2 macro IMO

my tier list of Zuiko 50s, having owned them all

0: 50/2 macro
1: 50/3.5 macro, 50/1.2
2: 55/1.2 (very good at what it does, is misunderstood)
3: 50/1.8, 50/1.4

speaking of 50/2 macro, I would like to say that I run the group for that lens and would very much appreciate anyone's contributions should they have the lens. digital or film or just pictures of the lens, whatever works for you!

http://www.flickr.com/groups/2184059@N25/

sorry to self promote, but I promise the only thing I get out of the group is the satisfaction of having a community around a great lens.
Click to expand...



I was trying to find some 1.2 shots to post but my filing system has defeated me to this point.

I will say that the lens is acceptably sharp at F1.2 and improves plenty at f2. I've always found barrel distortion to be fairly marked and flare resistance to be excellent.

I did actually manage to find some portraits I took recently at 1.2.

U5265I1378388390.SEQ.0.jpg



U5265I1378445522.SEQ.0.jpg



U5265I1378528006.SEQ.0.jpg


It is quite easy to miss focus slightly at close range with the lens wide open ... and my eyes aren't what they were! :D
 
Keith,

reviewing my images, I do not see as much in the way of distortion as say a Nikkor 50 or the 50/1.4 Planar, which are sort of the more notable cases in 50mm land. though I will agree there is some.
 
I was wondering what my next lens should be.

I have the following.
2 - 50mm 1.8
1 - 28mm 3.5
1 - 35mm 2.0
1 - 135mm 3.5
1 - 200mm 4.0

The 35mm is probably my favorite lens so far.

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