CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
So, the de-gas starts to become more serious. I have tried numerous 35mm film systems over the last year (and as a reviewer for a local camera store) and my priority is to find a second SLR system that I can use for trips on Dartmoor and hiking, where weight is considerably less than my Leica R system (gorgeous but a bit much lugging the R8, lenses and all the other stuff).
I find my OM2n to be a delight and the lenses lovely and small and light, but a bit soft. I have the 28mm f2.8, 35mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 and the 135mm f3.5 (which is nicely sharp). I find the 35mm the softest of the lot, and given to barrel distortion which is an issue for printing.
In competition, my Pentax LX should be returning from the repairer soon, and I have been impressed with the 50mm f1.2 (but not wide open as I keep missing focus - old eyes) and the 40mm f2.8. The question is whether I invest in a 35mm, a 28mm and longer glass - possibly also trading the 50mm f1.2 for a less hefty fifty.
The question is this, for those familiar with both systems, which do you think is sharper? Both are still very competitively priced, nicely light and compact, and neither camera system renowned for unfixeability (I have written off Contax for that reason, although the 35-70mm Vario Sonnar has real appeal).
I find my OM2n to be a delight and the lenses lovely and small and light, but a bit soft. I have the 28mm f2.8, 35mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 and the 135mm f3.5 (which is nicely sharp). I find the 35mm the softest of the lot, and given to barrel distortion which is an issue for printing.
In competition, my Pentax LX should be returning from the repairer soon, and I have been impressed with the 50mm f1.2 (but not wide open as I keep missing focus - old eyes) and the 40mm f2.8. The question is whether I invest in a 35mm, a 28mm and longer glass - possibly also trading the 50mm f1.2 for a less hefty fifty.
The question is this, for those familiar with both systems, which do you think is sharper? Both are still very competitively priced, nicely light and compact, and neither camera system renowned for unfixeability (I have written off Contax for that reason, although the 35-70mm Vario Sonnar has real appeal).
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I also found the Zuiko 35mm f2.8 kind of soft and not to the usual Zuiko standards.
Funny thing is I had a similar first opinion first time I used my newly bought Zuiko 85mm f 2 lens and then I realised from actual use of what a fantastic portrait lens it is and it is better for that job than the other 85mm lenses that I own.. by Nikkor or Canon or the FSU lens makers.
Huss
Veteran
The sharper one will be the one you can focus better.
John Bragg
Well-known
Hi Charles. I have no experience of Pentax glass but I have owned an OM1n (X2) and various Zuicko lenses since the mid 80s. I never found any problem with softness, but I always use a lens hood. If you are set on manual focus lenses then OM gets my vote. I also recently obtained a Vivitar (Kiron) 70-150 f3.8 and it came my way in mint condition for £15. Currently testing it.
Very capable lens with decent close focussing. I was thinking that it would be a good basis for a very lightweight kit with 28mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.8 Zuickos.
Very capable lens with decent close focussing. I was thinking that it would be a good basis for a very lightweight kit with 28mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.8 Zuickos.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Personally, I think that’s a big mistake. If you have another reason, okay, but I wouldn’t forsake all those Zeiss Contax lenses, which definitely are not soft, because you have been led to believe that Contax
“unrepairability” is a deal breaker. I have had Contax bodies since the late ‘70’s. Every repair issue I have had over 40+ years has been fixable, even recently, and, importantly, for that length of time, and the number of bodies, there haven’t been many. Two, I think. One shutter on a 645, and a motor drive on an ST. Both fixed, the ST 6 months or so ago.
But, let’s just for the sake of argument assume that for some reason repair is not an avenue to be pursued. The bodies are cheap, because of so much internet noise about them being abandoned. In most cases cheaper than a Leica CLA. If not wanting to repair, just get another, cost would be about the same anyway. No reason to cut off your nose to spite your face.
A 139Q at the low end of the price spectrum, or an Aria at the high end are both small light cameras. As nice as the Olympii and Pentaxes are, I don’t think you will find many people arguing that as an available system of lenses they are a match for the Zeiss lenses. You would not be giving up much if anything compared to the Leica-R lenses, and I have, or have had, most of those too. Different, but pretty equal, give or take, lens to lens.
People are so afraid of the bodies, but personally I don’t think it is justified. Am sure someone will chime in with a horror story about that one time back in ought seven when the shutter failed while on Safari, and their day, perhaps even their very lives, were ruined.
It’s all about the glass, anyway. Take a chance on love, as they say.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Charles, you might try to find a late 35 2.8 a different example.. & test it.... they're supposed to be sharper & the 28 3.5 has a reputation for sharpness. I do have a soft spot for the LX. It's a masterful camera.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
I have both Olympus and Pentax-K cameras and lenses. My experience is that Pentax lenses have much better contrast compared to Zuiko and that increases the perception that they are sharper - they might be but i havent seen it in my pictures.
The 35mm focal lenght wasn't Olympus' most bright moment. I have the 35 f/2 and it has been serviced by Luton cameras and is in top shape but the Pentax-M 35 f/2.8 is just sharper.
My Zuiko 28 f/3.5 is much better than the Pentax-M 28 f/2.8. So much that i dont even know where i have placed it any more.
Having said all these, i doubt you will see any major differences moving from one system to the other. I found the multi-spot feature of the OM4 useful when shooting landscapes. But i am sure the LX is just as capable.
The 35mm focal lenght wasn't Olympus' most bright moment. I have the 35 f/2 and it has been serviced by Luton cameras and is in top shape but the Pentax-M 35 f/2.8 is just sharper.
My Zuiko 28 f/3.5 is much better than the Pentax-M 28 f/2.8. So much that i dont even know where i have placed it any more.
Having said all these, i doubt you will see any major differences moving from one system to the other. I found the multi-spot feature of the OM4 useful when shooting landscapes. But i am sure the LX is just as capable.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
Umm, thanks Larry! Just added a third system to think about.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
I have both systems. Long time Pentax K shooter with a MX and LX, and over the last year or so I've built up an OM kit around the OM1n.
For OM, I have:
- Zuiko 28/f3.5
- Zuiko 50/f1.4
- Zuiko 100/f2.8
- Zuiko 200/f4
For Pentax, I have far too many
In general, I've found the lenses comparable (like for like).
As Pan says, I've been surprised by the quality of the Zuiko 28/f3.5 and found it noticeably better than the SMC-M 28/f2.8 (which I no longer own). I have heard that the Zuiko f3.5 version is better than the Zuiko f2.8, but don't have experience with the latter. Having said that, Pentax has some very, very nice 28's if you pay a bit more (SMC-K 28/f3.5, SMC-K 28/f2 and SMC-M 28/f2). The SMC-K 28/f3.5 in particular is a gem and can still be found for a good price if you look around.
I've found the SMC-K 50/f1.4 a touch better than the Zuiko 50/f1.4 wide open, and very similar stopped down (as you would expect from two very similar 7/6 Double Gauss designs). As an aside, the SMC also has noticeable better fit and finish. If you're looking to downsize from the SMC-K 50/f1.4, this is the Pentax 50mm I would look at.
I have the Zuiko 100/f2.8 and SMC-M 100/f2.8 and found them functionally indistinguishable. Both are great and tiny.
I have the Zuiko 200/f4 and used to own the SMC-M 200/f4. Again, both are great and tiny.
I've never used a Zuiko 135mm, but I have the SMC-K 135/f2.5 and it is an exceptional bit of glass. Sharp, fast and beautifully built. They can still be had for a decent price too, as the internet obsession with the 6-element S-M-C Takumar 135/f2.5 hasn't yet translated to it's optically identical K-mount cousin.
As an aside, I would argue that the star of the fully manual Pentax lenses (K and M series) is the SMC-K 85/f1.8. It is so so so good.
For OM, I have:
- Zuiko 28/f3.5
- Zuiko 50/f1.4
- Zuiko 100/f2.8
- Zuiko 200/f4
For Pentax, I have far too many
In general, I've found the lenses comparable (like for like).
As Pan says, I've been surprised by the quality of the Zuiko 28/f3.5 and found it noticeably better than the SMC-M 28/f2.8 (which I no longer own). I have heard that the Zuiko f3.5 version is better than the Zuiko f2.8, but don't have experience with the latter. Having said that, Pentax has some very, very nice 28's if you pay a bit more (SMC-K 28/f3.5, SMC-K 28/f2 and SMC-M 28/f2). The SMC-K 28/f3.5 in particular is a gem and can still be found for a good price if you look around.
I've found the SMC-K 50/f1.4 a touch better than the Zuiko 50/f1.4 wide open, and very similar stopped down (as you would expect from two very similar 7/6 Double Gauss designs). As an aside, the SMC also has noticeable better fit and finish. If you're looking to downsize from the SMC-K 50/f1.4, this is the Pentax 50mm I would look at.
I have the Zuiko 100/f2.8 and SMC-M 100/f2.8 and found them functionally indistinguishable. Both are great and tiny.
I have the Zuiko 200/f4 and used to own the SMC-M 200/f4. Again, both are great and tiny.
I've never used a Zuiko 135mm, but I have the SMC-K 135/f2.5 and it is an exceptional bit of glass. Sharp, fast and beautifully built. They can still be had for a decent price too, as the internet obsession with the 6-element S-M-C Takumar 135/f2.5 hasn't yet translated to it's optically identical K-mount cousin.
As an aside, I would argue that the star of the fully manual Pentax lenses (K and M series) is the SMC-K 85/f1.8. It is so so so good.
oftheherd
Veteran
Personally, I think that’s a big mistake. If you have another reason, okay, but I wouldn’t forsake all those Zeiss Contax lenses, which definitely are not soft, because you have been led to believe that Contax
“unrepairability” is a deal breaker. I have had Contax bodies since the late ‘70’s. Every repair issue I have had over 40+ years has been fixable, even recently, and, importantly, for that length of time, and the number of bodies, there haven’t been many. Two, I think. One shutter on a 645, and a motor drive on an ST. Both fixed, the ST 6 months or so ago.
But, let’s just for the sake of argument assume that for some reason repair is not an avenue to be pursued. The bodies are cheap, because of so much internet noise about them being abandoned. In most cases cheaper than a Leica CLA. If not wanting to repair, just get another, cost would be about the same anyway. No reason to cut off your nose to spite your face.
A 139Q at the low end of the price spectrum, or an Aria at the high end are both small light cameras. As nice as the Olympii and Pentaxes are, I don’t think you will find many people arguing that as an available system of lenses they are a match for the Zeiss lenses. You would not be giving up much if anything compared to the Leica-R lenses, and I have, or have had, most of those too. Different, but pretty equal, give or take, lens to lens.
People are so afraid of the bodies, but personally I don’t think it is justified. Am sure someone will chime in with a horror story about that one time back in ought seven when the shutter failed while on Safari, and their day, perhaps even their very lives, were ruined.
It’s all about the glass, anyway. Take a chance on love, as they say.
And as far as buying replacement bodies cheap, don't discount the Yashica cameras. The Contax lenses don't seem to mind being on Yashica bodies.
And there are some very compatible bodies out there.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
And as far as buying replacement bodies cheap, don't discount the Yashica cameras. The Contax lenses don't seem to mind being on Yashica bodies.
And there are some very compatible bodies out there.
Yep, there’s that.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I'm big backer of both Pentax and Olympus. Lens sharpness has never been a problem with either make for me. And I'm not sure that it is that important on a daily basis. Like someone said I think on this thread ability to focus is more important than sharpness.
But a few months ago some guy thought that his Pentax lenses were bad. I had one of the lenses so I did a test using my Pentax FF camera and the lenses he was complaining about (50mm f1.7 'F' lens). Here are the results, and I suspect that Olympus lenses would fair just as well:
FF shot ($ 20 Dollar bill):
Test for Pentax 50mm f1.7 by John Carter, on Flickr
Blow-up of part of the the $20 Dollar bill:
Test for Pentax 50mm f1.7 by John Carter, on Flickr
But a few months ago some guy thought that his Pentax lenses were bad. I had one of the lenses so I did a test using my Pentax FF camera and the lenses he was complaining about (50mm f1.7 'F' lens). Here are the results, and I suspect that Olympus lenses would fair just as well:
FF shot ($ 20 Dollar bill):
Test for Pentax 50mm f1.7 by John Carter, on FlickrBlow-up of part of the the $20 Dollar bill:
Test for Pentax 50mm f1.7 by John Carter, on Flickr
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
CharlesDAMorgan "So, the de-gas starts to become more serious." Assuming that you have the Olympus and Pentax systems....and that we can take you at your word... then Contax is out.
I've used both Pentax and Olympus (attracted by Sir Christian Bonginton's glowing endorsement). I preferred the handling of the Pentax ....and the LX is magic. I would guess you'd be able to solve your problem by finding a better 35mm example than the one you're not impressed with. The 40mm is a handy little lens & i think one can wring acceptable performance out of it. I usually limit 35mm enlargements to 11"x14." So either would work for me....but what are you envisioning as print output? & as you mentioned, perhaps swap out the 50 1.2 for an 50mm f1.4.
I've used both Pentax and Olympus (attracted by Sir Christian Bonginton's glowing endorsement). I preferred the handling of the Pentax ....and the LX is magic. I would guess you'd be able to solve your problem by finding a better 35mm example than the one you're not impressed with. The 40mm is a handy little lens & i think one can wring acceptable performance out of it. I usually limit 35mm enlargements to 11"x14." So either would work for me....but what are you envisioning as print output? & as you mentioned, perhaps swap out the 50 1.2 for an 50mm f1.4.
zuikologist
.........................
Charles
I have most of your lenses for both systems and would suggest for fair comparison leaving the 50/1.2 at home (keep it as they are reasonably rare) and pick up an SMC-M 50/1.7 - small and light and formulated with a flat field which should work well for Dartmoor landscapes. It is probably the sharpest of all Pentax K mount 50’s. I would then choose a system based on handling and condition - the lenses are 40 years old and condition likely as much a factor in performance as anything else. If you are willing to change a while system, Contax with a light YASHICA body or something like a 167mt is a very viable but option although lenses seem much more expensive (I have some of those too!).
I have most of your lenses for both systems and would suggest for fair comparison leaving the 50/1.2 at home (keep it as they are reasonably rare) and pick up an SMC-M 50/1.7 - small and light and formulated with a flat field which should work well for Dartmoor landscapes. It is probably the sharpest of all Pentax K mount 50’s. I would then choose a system based on handling and condition - the lenses are 40 years old and condition likely as much a factor in performance as anything else. If you are willing to change a while system, Contax with a light YASHICA body or something like a 167mt is a very viable but option although lenses seem much more expensive (I have some of those too!).
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
I'm always happy to buy in order to sell - better to have one system I like than 2 that get less use. But the lightness issue is a real thing, I'm just not getting any younger and I creak a lot more than I used to. But when I say the de-gas gets serious, to date it has been stuff that I've hardly used. Either of these would need a bit more push from me to part with.
Thanks Nick, a very useful side by side comparison. As you say, it's still possible to get most of these things reasonably inexpensively, but at the rate all this stuff now goes I think it's time to add what I need.
The one thing I don't have in either system is spot metering. My local dealer has an OM2SP - worth an experiment?
Thanks Nick, a very useful side by side comparison. As you say, it's still possible to get most of these things reasonably inexpensively, but at the rate all this stuff now goes I think it's time to add what I need.
The one thing I don't have in either system is spot metering. My local dealer has an OM2SP - worth an experiment?
tbhv55
Well-known
I agree, cjc........ and photographers do have a tendency to obsess over sharpness.
By contrast, I've never heard a non-photographer - when enthusing over an image - comment on how good the sharpness is in the corners...
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
Just to make life more interesting, I found a 139 Quartz in good condition from a dealer with a full 1 year warranty. So in the interests of science, and because it's a super useful lens for mirrorless, also ordered in the Vario Sonnar 35-70.
So it's now a 3 way fight between Contax/Olympus/Pentax. Well, when the last gets back from the repairer - 4 months so far!
So it's now a 3 way fight between Contax/Olympus/Pentax. Well, when the last gets back from the repairer - 4 months so far!
gavinlg
Veteran
My impression is that equivalent pentax lenses are better than OM Zuiko's with a few exceptions. However, (and it's a big however) the Zuiko's are better to use. I won't be without mine.
tbhv55
Well-known
I've never used the 139, but I know someone who had one - and rated it highly. Also, as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, the Yashica bodies share the same mount. Yashicas tend to be relatively inexpensive, and (fairly) easy to find.
I had an FX-3, back in the day, and I found it to be light, well-made, and easy to use.