The OM Zuiko 50mm SN > 1.1million legend

I had two of the 50/1.4 over 1.1 million and one with a serial around 650,000. The 1.1 million ones were a lot sharper and had better bokeh. I do not know if they were any better than the 'right before them' versions, though.
 
HarryW said:
Ronnie,
I need my OM2n fixed and normally in Edinburgh every month. Could you let me know which repair shop you use.

Regards
Harry
Click to expand...

I use Cameratiks which is inside Camerabase in Morningside. They're almost opposite Newbattle Terrace on Morningside Road. Go to the back of the shop and upstairs.

Ronnie
 
Some of you folks have said your 'later' f1.4 is better than your 'earlier' f1.4. Does anyone have a couple of photos that might illustrate the difference? For my part I have a 50mm f1.8 ('Japan', 253302) and a 50mm f1.4 (757086). I was happy with my f1.8 but noticed when using it fully open there was significant vignetting. The f1.4 at f2 has almost no vignetting as well as having a smoother and more out-of-focus bokeh. These differences are evident at any print size, even 6"x4". Image sharpness (f1.8 vs. f1.4 at the same aperture) has never seemed particularly noticeable to me (although I don't doubt there is a difference). I was wondering if anyone had a couple of photos that would illustrate why you would favour one f1.4 lens over another.
 
sparrow6224 said:
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? .....

Any similar info with the MIJ 50/1.8 and the even more difficult to find MIJ 35mm f/2 would be most welcome.

There are 5 different 1.4s (i have the parts lists in front of me, I've used them for decades). Type one single coated (SC) with silver edged filter ring, type 2 is SC with black filter ring. Type 1 and 2 don't share any replacement lens elements. Type 3 says "MC" on name ring, Type 4 is also MC but does not have "MC" on name ring (you can tell by blueish, green, purple reflections in glass) this version known as NMC (perhaps as simple as No MC designation). Type 3 and 4 also do not share any replacement glass elements.
Type 5 is above 1,110,00 is of course multicoated MC. and has front element and element 2/3 factory assembled into one unit with the filter ring. Hope this explanation helps. John
Click to expand...
 
John Hermanson said:
Type 5 is above 1,110,00 is of course multicoated MC. and has front element and element 2/3 factory assembled into one unit with the filter ring. Hope this explanation helps. John
Click to expand...

Hi John,

This description sounds like what I found in a "made in japan" 50/1.8.

Is it possible to open the assembly to clean internal fungus/dust?

Of course this particular 50/1.8 is not worth having commercially cleansed.

Thanks, Bill
 
Agreed re: the 50/3.5 macro. My favorite "daytime" Zuiko. Incredible sharpness, with a nice transition from in focus to out of focus areas.

redisburning said:
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).
Click to expand...
 
John Hermanson said:
sparrow6224 said:
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? .....

Any similar info with the MIJ 50/1.8 and the even more difficult to find MIJ 35mm f/2 would be most welcome.

There are 5 different 1.4s (i have the parts lists in front of me, I've used them for decades).
(...)
Type 4 is also MC but does not have "MC" on name ring (you can tell by blueish, green, purple reflections in glass) this version known as NMC (perhaps as simple as No MC designation). Type 3 and 4 also do not share any replacement glass elements.
Type 5 is above 1,110,00 is of course multicoated MC. and has front element and element 2/3 factory assembled into one unit with the filter ring. Hope this explanation helps. John
Click to expand...

I've got two 1.4, one is obviously type 1 (single coated, silver nose), the other one is just over 1m (much closer to 1m that to 1.1m), but it definitely does say MC on the ring, Is it version 4 or 5? Not that I mind either, it easily outperforms my handholding in low light and film/developer induced grain in better conditions. Just curious.
Click to expand...
 
wblynch said:
Hi John,

This description sounds like what I found in a "made in japan" 50/1.8.

Is it possible to open the assembly to clean internal fungus/dust?

Of course this particular 50/1.8 is not worth having commercially cleansed.

Thanks, Bill
Click to expand...

Front group cannot be opened on tyoe 4 and 5 50 1.8 or type 5 1.4, they are stamped shut/glued at the factory. of course, people have their own mind. Force open, grind with dreml, then throw in garbage. John
 
about the serial numbers: does someone knows if it goes like for leica, by year, independently of the model, or does every lens has its serials?

Is there a way to spot late series lenses systematically?
Is the "made in Japan" a hint?

I might be after a 35mm f/2...
 
gustavoAvila said:
I own (or have owned) new and used OM Zuiko lenses from 18 to 600mm since 1973.
...

3) Skip the non-MC versions of the 85mm.

...
Click to expand...


Hi Gustavo,

I'm curious, why do you say that one should skip the non-MC versions of the 85/2? I'm very pleased with mine and I use it a lot (it must be the model right before the MC one). It only needs a hood, because it's prone to flare, but otherwise it's fine to my eyes.
 
My experience with MC and non-MC versions of the "same" lens is that copies of the former almost invariably have less flare and better contrast than the later.

(The sole exception to date have been my copies of the 35mm F2.8, where I was not able to find any discernible differences between the two versions.)

As previously mentioned in this thread, some OM lenses were redesigned over their market life, the 85mm being one of them.

The later 85mm is generally considered to be "superior" to the earlier version with regard to flare, contrast and sharpness.

(Full disclosure, I only owned the first non-MC version (bought new), and was never impressed with the output.)

In any case, if you have a lens that works for you, hold on to it!
 
Thanks Gustavo. When I saw the date of your post (afterwards) I didn't believe that this thread would be revived after more than a year!
 
Optically, my mint condition MiJ 50 1.8 is very sharp and contrasty, perhaps more so than many other 50's I have from other manufacturers. I have never directly compared it to a Zuiko 50 1.4, so can't weigh in on that debate. However, it feels much cheaper made than other Zuikos I have (24/2.8, 28/3.5, 100/2.8, 135/3.5 and 2.8 and 200/4) especially the notchy and wiggly aperture ring. Built quality also suffers by comparison to the Hexanon, Nikkor, Minolta MD, Canon FD, Yashica ML and Takumar 50's I own.
 
ronnies said:
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.

There are 5 different 50/1.8 and the last 2 are MC. The first MC, previous to MIJ version, is not as good as MIJ and has problem with front lens group separation. John
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom