NathanJD
Well-known
I'm currently waiting for a (supposedly perfect) pre 1 million Zuiko OM 50/1.4 to come from the states; it 's about 600,000 and something.
Are they really that bad? Or at least, are they really so much less than the post 1 million version? I have read some really conflicting info on it, some say they like it and others say it's unremarkable and average. What is the truth about this lens? Why does everyone seem to jump on the "get the later version" band wagon and why is it so controversial?
also, has anyone directly compared these lenses, and can anyone provide some direct comparrisons?
Are they really that bad? Or at least, are they really so much less than the post 1 million version? I have read some really conflicting info on it, some say they like it and others say it's unremarkable and average. What is the truth about this lens? Why does everyone seem to jump on the "get the later version" band wagon and why is it so controversial?
also, has anyone directly compared these lenses, and can anyone provide some direct comparrisons?
Spyderman
Well-known
They are not bad. Nobody is sayng the lower s.no. samples are bad. It's just that the high s.no. are oustanding.
I didn't have chance to compare 1.4 pre and post 1.1mil. but I did compare 1.8 single coated and the latest MiJ, and result was that the MiJ is indeed sharper.
I believe the differences stem from the mechanical construction. The first generations of lenses were aluminium and the glass lenses were placed in milled grooves. The later versions use more plastic, but the plastic parts can be made to tighter tolerances. Or maybe they also improved the tolerances of the glass elements...
I didn't have chance to compare 1.4 pre and post 1.1mil. but I did compare 1.8 single coated and the latest MiJ, and result was that the MiJ is indeed sharper.
I believe the differences stem from the mechanical construction. The first generations of lenses were aluminium and the glass lenses were placed in milled grooves. The later versions use more plastic, but the plastic parts can be made to tighter tolerances. Or maybe they also improved the tolerances of the glass elements...
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Allegedly, early OM lenses were unbelievably variable -- the best very good, the worst very bad. I can't give the source but it's one I'd trust.
Anecdotally, a friend was lent an early Olympus OM outfit for a glamour shoot as a PR stunt -- 2 bodies, 5 lenses -- and he reckoned that only one lens was sharp.
Cheers,
R.
Anecdotally, a friend was lent an early Olympus OM outfit for a glamour shoot as a PR stunt -- 2 bodies, 5 lenses -- and he reckoned that only one lens was sharp.
Cheers,
R.
NathanJD
Well-known
Interesting stuff. the 28/2.8 I have is pin sharp, i may have got off lucky there. i suppose i'll have to wait until the lens arrives and just field test it.
If you were going to test a lens for quality, what film would you use and why?
If you were going to test a lens for quality, what film would you use and why?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I have the very early version and I have no complaints. It is a tiny bit soft at f1.4 but not excessively so and sharpens up stopped down a little.
By any standards it's a good lens IMO!
By any standards it's a good lens IMO!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Delta 100 or Pan F, and a test target (even a newspaper). Boring, sure, and not close to 'real' shooting -- but a quick way of seeing if it's sharp. Shoot a brick wall to test for distortion. Shoot twigs or telegraph wires against the sky to test for flare, deliberately overexposing a frame or two (with some lenses, flare becomes disproportionately more with overexposure). Take pics with hard, glancing light just hitting the front glass, and no lens hood. Keep exposure to a minimum (less exposure = more sharpness) and don't over-develop (more development = less sharpness).
Some people attack all such testing, on principle, and indeed, it's a bit pointless if that's all you ever do. But one test roll can tell you a lot about what the lens can and can't do when you start using it for real pictures.
Cheers,
R.
NathanJD
Well-known
Invaluable, thanks Roger!
Can you explain what you mean by don’t over-develop? In what ways and by what values can you cut developing times for film without under/over developing?
I currently use Ilford DD-X and still follow Ilford’s ‘how to develop a film’ pdf. I have a Patterson developing tank and my method is to agitate on pouring in the developer and then every minute with 4 twists back and fourth of the stick that spins the film reel and a quick drop into the sink to dislodge any bubbles. I do this for the length of time the developer is said to need and then begin pouring out 15 seconds before the end of the time quickly followed by the stop bath.
Also, can this method be improved upon?
As a side note I have just had the call to tell me that the lens has arrived. Now all i have to do it watch the clock in work until 5.15 ticks over!
Can you explain what you mean by don’t over-develop? In what ways and by what values can you cut developing times for film without under/over developing?
I currently use Ilford DD-X and still follow Ilford’s ‘how to develop a film’ pdf. I have a Patterson developing tank and my method is to agitate on pouring in the developer and then every minute with 4 twists back and fourth of the stick that spins the film reel and a quick drop into the sink to dislodge any bubbles. I do this for the length of time the developer is said to need and then begin pouring out 15 seconds before the end of the time quickly followed by the stop bath.
Also, can this method be improved upon?
As a side note I have just had the call to tell me that the lens has arrived. Now all i have to do it watch the clock in work until 5.15 ticks over!
ferider
Veteran
OP: I can tell you in a few days, when my post 1.1 mio 50/1.4 will arrive.
Generally, all the Zuikos that I used behaved very similarly, and only get competitively sharp at f5.6 and above. But then they really have high resolution, meaning as good as contemporary Leica glass, for instance. Below f5.6, they are softer, but with very nice OOF rendering. So I guess reports also vary, because people measure different things.
I primarily got the post 1.1mio 50/1.4 because, according to Reese, it has no measurable distortion. While the earlier version that I had barreled noticably. If you check his benchmarks, the post 1.1 mio 50/1.4 performs better than the 50/2 Zuiko macro, and the contemporary 50/2 Summicron. Almost hard to believe.
I remember as a kid reading test reports in magazines, that across 50/1.8, 50/1.4 and 55/1.2 Zuikos, the 50/1.4 always got the best reviews.
A report will follow in a few days. Also comparing the 28/2 Zuiko against the 28/2 Kiron (should have different distortion levels, too)
Roland.
Generally, all the Zuikos that I used behaved very similarly, and only get competitively sharp at f5.6 and above. But then they really have high resolution, meaning as good as contemporary Leica glass, for instance. Below f5.6, they are softer, but with very nice OOF rendering. So I guess reports also vary, because people measure different things.
I primarily got the post 1.1mio 50/1.4 because, according to Reese, it has no measurable distortion. While the earlier version that I had barreled noticably. If you check his benchmarks, the post 1.1 mio 50/1.4 performs better than the 50/2 Zuiko macro, and the contemporary 50/2 Summicron. Almost hard to believe.
I remember as a kid reading test reports in magazines, that across 50/1.8, 50/1.4 and 55/1.2 Zuikos, the 50/1.4 always got the best reviews.
A report will follow in a few days. Also comparing the 28/2 Zuiko against the 28/2 Kiron (should have different distortion levels, too)
Roland.
Last edited:
NathanJD
Well-known
Thanks Roland, it would be nice to see what you think once your post 1 mil lens comes in.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
If you cut the dev time 10% your negatives won't be pretty but they'll be sharper than if you dev them for the full time. All you're looking for is sharpness, flare, etc., not tonal excellence.
EdSawyer
Established
I have had several OM 50/1.4s incl. one in the magic over 1M range. They are all good. Coatings changed a bit between them but optically there is not a huge difference in design.
Even contemporary lens tests bear this out. I have tests posted of many lenses of the day, incl. these, as tested by Modern PHoto and Pop PHoto at:
http://www.edsawyer.com/lenstests/
the OM 50/1.4 zuiko was the best of the OMs at some apetures but was bettered by the 1.8 and 1.2 at other apetures.
-Ed
Even contemporary lens tests bear this out. I have tests posted of many lenses of the day, incl. these, as tested by Modern PHoto and Pop PHoto at:
http://www.edsawyer.com/lenstests/
the OM 50/1.4 zuiko was the best of the OMs at some apetures but was bettered by the 1.8 and 1.2 at other apetures.
-Ed
jbielikowski
Jan Bielikowski
my pre 1M 50/1.4 was mint and soooo good looking on OM-1... bokeh was a matter of taste.
all those zuikoholic threads makes me want black OM-1...
all those zuikoholic threads makes me want black OM-1...