sparrow6224
Well-known
Really, how much better is the post 1.1 million Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 compared to other late versions of the lens, say over 1 million, or over 900K? Was some miracle coating discovered? What is the real story here? No doubt this has been discussed before but I'm looking for a simple knowledgeable punchy answer to this long unanswered question.....
Any similar info with the MIJ 50/1.8 and the even more difficult to find MIJ 35mm f/2 would be most welcome.
And: now that we're at it: are there divides like this among the 24/2s? The 28/2s? the 85/2s? That covers the full range of my Zuiko possessed and/or desired lenses.
Any similar info with the MIJ 50/1.8 and the even more difficult to find MIJ 35mm f/2 would be most welcome.
And: now that we're at it: are there divides like this among the 24/2s? The 28/2s? the 85/2s? That covers the full range of my Zuiko possessed and/or desired lenses.
Mystyler
Established
I honestly don't know, not owning a 1.4. However, there were changes with the coatings serveral times throughout its production run and the overall length of the lens changed somewhere around 1984.
PatrickT
New Rangefinder User
FWIW....I had both a <1.1 mil and >1.1 mil 50/1.4 at the same time. I took a few unscientific tests with them using my 5D and didn't really notice a difference. I sold the 1.1 mil because I got more money for it.
YMMV.
YMMV.
ferider
Veteran
I've used older OM 50/1.4, 50/1.8 and 28/2 lenses and newer ones. I've found great sample variation. My current > 1.1 Mio 50/1.4, MIJ 50/1.8, and 35/2 (Japan) and 28/2 (Japan) perform great, the older samples that I had not so much. I always test my lenses before using them, and there was wide variation in resolution and distortion. The 1.1 Mio 50/1.4 and MIJ 50/1.8 perform as well as equivalent Leica lenses of the time, older samples didn't.
My personal guess is that late Zuikos had much better quality control, rather than any relevant design changes. And that's all there is to the myth, IMHO.
The other thing I found is that lenses perform much better when your cameras have been CLA'ed
Mirror adjustment is just as important as correct RF adjustment in a Leica.
Roland.
My personal guess is that late Zuikos had much better quality control, rather than any relevant design changes. And that's all there is to the myth, IMHO.
The other thing I found is that lenses perform much better when your cameras have been CLA'ed
Mirror adjustment is just as important as correct RF adjustment in a Leica.Roland.
filmfan
Well-known
Very interesting.
nikku
Well-known
A lot of the >1.1 mil serial number myth was perpetuated by Gary Reese's lens tests. Interestingly enough, his own conclusions were that harmonic vibrations introduced by the OM-1 mirror in conjunction with certain focal lengths made more of a difference than anything else. That, and sample variation.
redisburning
Well-known
the optical formula for the 50/1.4 probably changed in 84.
with regards to the Zuiko 50/1.4 compared to the V2 or 3 Summilux, I would give it to the Lux, both in terms of rendering (subjective) and raw performance. Obviously the Zuiko is cheaper and focuses closer, and was made well enough. Certainly better than contemporary 50/1.8s.
the sharpest Zuiko I have ever had come through my hands is the 50/3.5 Macro at f5.6. My 28/2 at f4 or 5.6 is within shouting distance over most of the frame, I suppose. The Mij 50/1.8 can only hang with them in the central part of the frame.
I would agree that Olympus' grinding of the lenses improving probably makes for a really large part of any differences. Production methods improve dramatically over time, especially if we are talking 1970s Japan, which we are in some cases. I would invite you all to look at the effect grinding has on the performance of the common 6/4 double gauss when comparing the 50 Summicron v5 or ZM Planar vs say the 50/1.8 MiJ or even a Canon/Nikon 50/1.8. Because there is a significant and noticeable difference from the outset that doesnt disappear over the relevant aperture range (because to me f8 is outside of relevance for non-macro 50mm lenses).
with regards to the Zuiko 50/1.4 compared to the V2 or 3 Summilux, I would give it to the Lux, both in terms of rendering (subjective) and raw performance. Obviously the Zuiko is cheaper and focuses closer, and was made well enough. Certainly better than contemporary 50/1.8s.
the sharpest Zuiko I have ever had come through my hands is the 50/3.5 Macro at f5.6. My 28/2 at f4 or 5.6 is within shouting distance over most of the frame, I suppose. The Mij 50/1.8 can only hang with them in the central part of the frame.
I would agree that Olympus' grinding of the lenses improving probably makes for a really large part of any differences. Production methods improve dramatically over time, especially if we are talking 1970s Japan, which we are in some cases. I would invite you all to look at the effect grinding has on the performance of the common 6/4 double gauss when comparing the 50 Summicron v5 or ZM Planar vs say the 50/1.8 MiJ or even a Canon/Nikon 50/1.8. Because there is a significant and noticeable difference from the outset that doesnt disappear over the relevant aperture range (because to me f8 is outside of relevance for non-macro 50mm lenses).
zuiko85
Veteran
If you can't take a good picture with an early silver nosed 50 1.8 Zuiko a late model probably won't help.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
At least my >1 Mio but < 1.1 Mio 50/1.4 performed superbly well
ronnies
Well-known
I can only comment on the 50/1.8s. I have three and only the MIJ one is multicoated, the other two look single coated. I've not tried side by side comparisons though.
Ronnie
Ronnie
wblynch
Well-known
As to the 50/1.8's, the "Japan" and "Made In Japan" models had a sealed front group that seems impossible to open for cleaning. (well I'm sure it could be opened but questionable how one would reseal it).
If you have one with fungus, dust or haze in the front group you will have to live with it.
I find the silver-nose 50/1.4 works great with a lens hood. And especially the 85/2.0 and 75-150/4 which demand the lens hood.
If you have one with fungus, dust or haze in the front group you will have to live with it.
I find the silver-nose 50/1.4 works great with a lens hood. And especially the 85/2.0 and 75-150/4 which demand the lens hood.
Beemermark
Veteran
I read on the internet that > 1.1 mil lenses were better. Therefore it must be true.
Drago
Established
From what i'v seen, used, read most of the zuikos get a little better over time, but i don't think they are the sharpest lenses around. Maybe except the macro lenses. But that is what i like about them A little softness is always welcome. And to your question - probably it's sharper but not miles away from the earlier ones
A little softness is always welcome. And to your question - probably it's sharper but not miles away from the earlier onesronnies
Well-known
The local repair shop here in Edinburgh managed to clean fungus from the front group in my MIJ 50/1.8.
Ronnie
Pete B
Well-known
Mine is in the 9000000s. I often wonder how much sharper could a 1100000 be.
Pete
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrchombee67/8595435351/sizes/l/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrchombee67/7198225572/sizes/h/in/set-72157628930139879/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrchombee67/7198223992/sizes/h/in/set-72157628930139879/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrchombee67/6648961461/sizes/l/in/set-72157628930139879/
Pete
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrchombee67/8595435351/sizes/l/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrchombee67/7198225572/sizes/h/in/set-72157628930139879/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrchombee67/7198223992/sizes/h/in/set-72157628930139879/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrchombee67/6648961461/sizes/l/in/set-72157628930139879/
gustavoAvila
Established
I own (or have owned) new and used OM Zuiko lenses from 18 to 600mm since 1973.
With regard to lenses assembled in the seventies versus those in the eighties, I have NOT noticed a general difference in quality or performance. However, later models of the 50F1.4 and 85F2 are definitely better.
Sample variation is a fact of life, especially for used lenses. It is possible that the many of the older lenses have gotten a bad rap simply because they have suffered the ravages of time longer than the newer lenses! In any case, it is preferable to buy newer lenses for this reason alone.
With regard to the 50mm F1.4, my >1.1 million (purchased used) is an excellent lens. (Or at least it was until the aperture blades started to stick! The lens was subsequently repaired.)
My silver nose 50mm F1.4, while not technically as "good" as the "> 1.1" may be preferable for B&W work due to its more classical rendition. I will concur that this lens demands an aggressive hood.
With regard to hoods, most Zuiko's benefit from more aggressive shades than those supplied by Olympus. (Which in my opinion, are designed more for aesthetics than function.) Check out the Konica and Pentax rectangular hoods which are readily available on eBay.
With regard to resolution, I have observed that while a Zuiko may not be as sharp in the center of the image (than an equivalent lens from another manufacturer), there is an excellent chance it will be more uniformly sharp across the frame. A good Zuiko, in general, will be competitive with the lenses of its era.
To summarize, my recommendations (FWIW) are:
1) Skip the 18, 21/F2 and 24/F2 lenses. For the going prices (of these lenses) one is better off buying a new Zeiss ZM with a warranty.
2) A 50mm F1.4 > 1.1 lens is "technically" preferable to earlier versions (and the 50mm F1.8 lenses).
3) Skip the non-MC versions of the 85mm.
4) Many Zuiko lenses are starting to experience aperture blade sticking. If at all possible, buy from vendors who allow returns.
5) Don't expect the first lens purchased to be representative of it's breed. To repeat, there is a lot of sample variation!
With regard to lenses assembled in the seventies versus those in the eighties, I have NOT noticed a general difference in quality or performance. However, later models of the 50F1.4 and 85F2 are definitely better.
Sample variation is a fact of life, especially for used lenses. It is possible that the many of the older lenses have gotten a bad rap simply because they have suffered the ravages of time longer than the newer lenses! In any case, it is preferable to buy newer lenses for this reason alone.
With regard to the 50mm F1.4, my >1.1 million (purchased used) is an excellent lens. (Or at least it was until the aperture blades started to stick! The lens was subsequently repaired.)
My silver nose 50mm F1.4, while not technically as "good" as the "> 1.1" may be preferable for B&W work due to its more classical rendition. I will concur that this lens demands an aggressive hood.
With regard to hoods, most Zuiko's benefit from more aggressive shades than those supplied by Olympus. (Which in my opinion, are designed more for aesthetics than function.) Check out the Konica and Pentax rectangular hoods which are readily available on eBay.
With regard to resolution, I have observed that while a Zuiko may not be as sharp in the center of the image (than an equivalent lens from another manufacturer), there is an excellent chance it will be more uniformly sharp across the frame. A good Zuiko, in general, will be competitive with the lenses of its era.
To summarize, my recommendations (FWIW) are:
1) Skip the 18, 21/F2 and 24/F2 lenses. For the going prices (of these lenses) one is better off buying a new Zeiss ZM with a warranty.
2) A 50mm F1.4 > 1.1 lens is "technically" preferable to earlier versions (and the 50mm F1.8 lenses).
3) Skip the non-MC versions of the 85mm.
4) Many Zuiko lenses are starting to experience aperture blade sticking. If at all possible, buy from vendors who allow returns.
5) Don't expect the first lens purchased to be representative of it's breed. To repeat, there is a lot of sample variation!
ferider
Veteran
Good points, Gustavo, I agree with all except this (boldface part):
A good 50/1.8 MIJ can be a phenomenal lens, even better than the > 1.1Mio 50/1.4, depending on what you are looking for, technically. The 50/1.8 is more rectilinear and has less flare (due to recessed front element, among others). So good that I was surprised when I looked at first test results from my current sample.
Roland.
A good 50/1.8 MIJ can be a phenomenal lens, even better than the > 1.1Mio 50/1.4, depending on what you are looking for, technically. The 50/1.8 is more rectilinear and has less flare (due to recessed front element, among others). So good that I was surprised when I looked at first test results from my current sample.
Roland.
HarryW
Established
Ronnie,
I need my OM2n fixed and normally in Edinburgh every month. Could you let me know which repair shop you use.
Regards
Harry
gustavoAvila
Established
I won't argue this point! A good MIJ can be very good indeed!
While I have not exhaustively compared the MIJ with the "1.4 > 1.1", I have compared my copies of these lenses at infinity. Where the 1.4 was very marginally better than the MIJ.
However, a lens cannot be judged entirely by its resolution at infinity (or by any other one metric)! I use "infinity testing" to identify lenses (and bodies) with obvious issues.
Having used 50mm lenses for many, many years, I simply prefer the feel and rendition of the 1.4 over the other Olympus 50mm FL lenses. (Including those with higher resolution, such as the 50mm F3.5 macro.)
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Given the age of the lenses we are talking about, I don't think QC comes into it but what the previous owner did with it or didn't is far more important. The best OM lens I ever had was dropped and the filter ring dented before I got it...
Regards, David
Given the age of the lenses we are talking about, I don't think QC comes into it but what the previous owner did with it or didn't is far more important. The best OM lens I ever had was dropped and the filter ring dented before I got it...
Regards, David