Pen FT Standard 42/1.2 H Zuiko

[Hibbs]

Just wondered if there was anyone out there that can give feedback on the Pen FT Standard 42/1.2 H Zuiko?

I am wondering what the characteristics are like wide open. What is the bokeh like with this lens.

Thanks in advance for any comments.

~hibbs

 

[kb244]

From all my reading on the web in the past two days (I got a new FT) , I don't think I ever came accross a referece to a 42/1.4 certainly not standard (standard was 38/1.8), I did see a Zuiko 40 f/1.4, but a lot of what I been reading and from someone else that has it , is that other than the half a stop brighter, its not really much different at all from the 38mm f/1.8.

 

[Film dino]

The 42/ 1.2 does exist- see http://www.skipwilliams.com/olympus/pen-lit.htm
I have seen a couple on ebay; no personal experience of using one

David

 

[kb244]

The 42/ 1.2 does exist- see http://www.skipwilliams.com/olympus/pen-lit.htm
I have seen a couple on ebay; no personal experience of using one

David

The Guide to interchangible lens then I guess.

 

[Hibbs]

Yeah...it is a little bit rare. have a look at this page.

Thanks

~hibbs

 

[raid]

It seems that Olympus made their normal lenses slower but sharper as they went from 42mm/1.2 to 40mm/1.4 to 38mm/1.8.

 

[shadowfox]

Hmm, even the "standard" 38mm/1.8 can produce shallow DOF.

I haven't tried the 40/1.4 yet, but I think the 1.2 would be quite fuzzy up to the point it's unusable at 1.2 unless Mr. Maitani pulls some other magic tricks on that one.

But the big aperture will aid in composing through the rather dim Pen FT viewfinder.

 

[kb244]

Based on what I am reading here and other places, I'm inclined to beleive that the 42/1.2 was made much in the same purpose as say the Canon 50mm f/0.95, not for sharpness or good bokeh, but for the photojournalist types who needed to get that picture. So it makes sense if the 42/1.2 isn't as good as say the 38/1.8 , because a journalist would rather have captured that picture, than not at all because of a slower lens.

 

[ferider]

It's pretty good. I find it similar in behavior to the full-frame 55/1.2
(when I had it). Not too sharp wide open, but not bad either.
And great to lighten up the viewfinder. The PEN FT lens I still have.
The 50/1.4 is a very sharp lens even at f1.4.

On the left (obviously ):

Roland.

 

[ferider]

here is a shot taken with the 42/1.2, but not wide open:

and here with the 40/1.4, wide open:

Best,

Roland.

 

[Hibbs]

Thanks kindly for your comments Roland...I am not sure whether I still want the 1.2 or not.

I have an FV which has the brighter view. Maybe the 1.4 over the 1.8? I dunno.

Love these tiny rigs eh?

~hibbs

 

[Doug]

Here's a clip from a January 1970 brief test of several Pen F lenses in Camera 35... They didn't include the 38mm f1.8 but elsewhere I've read that it's the best optically of the three fast normals. I have the 38 f1.8 and 40 f1.4 and cannot disagree with that assessment. There are also a 38mm f2.8 "pancake" and 38 f3.5 Macro, which I don't know anything about.

And a shot with the 40mm f1.4 with the FV and Fuji Superia 400

 

[Film dino]

.... There are also a 38mm f2.8 "pancake" and 38 f3.5 Macro, which I don't know anything about.

I had the "pancake" for a while. It's really pancake-like (!) & makes the Pen F truly pocketable, but the performance wasn't really up to the standard of the 38/1.8. Sorry I haven't any pics to show.

Another solution for macro is the OM 50/3.5 via the Pen F-OM adaptor (but losing auto-diaphragm operation), which often comes up on ebay. Had good results with this.

David

 

[delible]

The lens was reviewed in, I believe, British Journal of Photography, in 1969 (I have access to it through a compilation made by Terence Sheehy which doesn't cite the source precisely). The reviewer rated it as "a very fine lens indeed"; he observed that at 1.2 image quality was a "slight improvement" over the standard 1.8 at its full aperture; at 1.4 he observed that the 1.2 lens did "noticeably better" than the standard 1.8 at full aperture. He thought that the "coverage" of the lens, corner to corner, was more even than the standard 1.8 (maybe that would have something to do with bokeh). The only negative that he reported was "fairly low contrast" and he thought that designing more contrast into it, even as the cost of losing some resolution, would increase its capabilities. The reviewer ties the design of the lens to its use at the widest aperture by those who definitely need the aperture, such as reporters, a point that has been made here by another poster. Hope this helps