What are the primo must have lenses for the OM system?

I've not used any of the really high-end ones, but the 50/1.8 is outrageously good for a $20 or so lens. The 300/4.5 is one finely made fast telephoto - a really a cool beauty mechanically and optically. I've also shot with the 28/3.5, 28/2.8 and 35/2.8 - not exactly high end lenses money-wise, but superb.
 
Last edited:
TWoK said:
My 55/1.2 was nearly two stops slower than my other f/1.2 lenses. It was slower than a 50/2.0 and about 1/3 faster than a 50/1.2 at f/2.8. This was not just based of off the meter reading but the actual exposure.
Click to expand...

If you mean by "actual exposure" that the slides or negatives came back about 2 stops underexposed, it sounds like your camera or the lens-camera linkage could be off. You really should test the lens with an hand-held light meter to determine if the lens is really as slow as you say (highly doubtful), as opposed to something else causing your underexposures.
 
Look it was digital. It was as slow as I say it was. Several other people who own or have own the 55/1.2 have also noticed this.
 
The 55/1.2 had radioactive coatings which, over time, tend to yellow and may affect transmission. Two stops sounds like a lot. I've never read this reported when the lens was current or from film users, and if it had been that big a problem I'm certain it would have been noticed and vigorously discussed.

A proper evaluation would require an optical test bench.
 
TWoK said:
Look it was digital. It was as slow as I say it was. Several other people who own or have own the 55/1.2 have also noticed this.
Click to expand...

Since you say you were shooting digital, you obviously were using an adapter for the lens. The increased distance from lens flange to focal plane reduces the light transmission somewhat, although probably not by the two stops you claim. But if you are comparing a film lens to a digital lens, I'm not sure that you are comparing apples to apples, as digital sensors and film receive light rather differently. Since a digital sensor will not register light transmitted at a somewhat oblique angle -- while film will register light transmitted at a far broader range of angles, the apparent light transmission for digital will be less.
 
We also need to ascertain if TWok was used the 55 f1.2 on a crop-sensor or full-frame DSLR. I think there's a difference as well.
 
Dean Cho said:
Since you say you were shooting digital, you obviously were using an adapter for the lens. The increased distance from lens flange to focal plane reduces the light transmission somewhat, although probably not by the two stops you claim. But if you are comparing a film lens to a digital lens, I'm not sure that you are comparing apples to apples, as digital sensors and film receive light rather differently. Since a digital sensor will not register light transmitted at a somewhat oblique angle -- while film will register light transmitted at a far broader range of angles, the apparent light transmission for digital will be less.
Click to expand...

Not much from a 50/55mm lens is coming at an oblique angle. Look, my adapter was just fine. I used that adapter on my other lenses with no issues.
 
Yeah, I don't think it's the adapter or sensor that is causing that much loss. It's all just pretty strange.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
The 100/2.8, already mentioned here by others is a very sharp portrait lens with great bokeh and it is CHEAP compared to the 80/2, which is not as sharp and costs 3 times as much used.

The 28/2.8 and 24/2.8 are both better than the f2 versions and cost very little.
Click to expand...

The 85/2 can be had on KEH in BGN condition for $189. That's only $30-$50 more expensive than the 100/2.8.
I much prefer my 85/2 over the 100/2.8 I had, and sold. I felt that the 100/2.8 had harsh bokeh, and was not a very useful length--too short for outdoor portraits, too long for indoors. I have both the 135/3.5 and 135/2.8 and like them both more than the 100/2.8, and they are both cheaper.

Also disagree with you re: the 28/2. It is definitely better than the 28/2.8. The 2.8 is a good lens, don't get me wrong, but lens tests and real world examples show the 28/2 to be the real winner. It also has the close focusing correction, which makes it great for candid portraits. Gary Reese called the 28/2 "one of the sharpest Zuikos."
Compare:
http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=225&Itemid=97

http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=226&Itemid=97

The 28/2 is a must have lens, but it's kinda hard to find. Not that it's rare, but I think that once people use it, they refuse to sell it because it's so good!
 
Last edited:
johnny9fingers said:
Well, I have two OM-2 bodies on the way and suppose they will be more useful with lenses :D. What are considered to be the best lenses in the OM system???

Thanks,,,.... John
Click to expand...

I used to be a total addict and owned a large range of the Zuikos. These days I think they are overrated as far as optical quality is concerned, although of course the charm is partly the small size and light weight.

Having said all that, my favorite lenses back in the day were the 28mm f/2 and the 35-70 f/3.6. I also loved the 200mm f/5 (again, for reasons of compactness with decent optical quality).

Tom
 
Tom Diaz said:
I used to be a total addict and owned a large range of the Zuikos. These days I think they are overrated as far as optical quality is concerned, although of course the charm is partly the small size and light weight.

Having said all that, my favorite lenses back in the day were the 28mm f/2 and the 35-70 f/3.6. I also loved the 200mm f/5 (again, for reasons of compactness with decent optical quality).

Tom
Click to expand...

:D Well, if you have any of those crappy Zuikos you want to get rid of, let me know as I'd be happy to take them off your hands....:D
 
One last sample from the 21/2:

Portra 400BW (expired), yellow-green filer, Oxford County, Ontario

4104333336_68694780a6.jpg

​

(other sizes here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/edunbar/4104333336/sizes/l/g)
 
TWoK said:
That was mounted on a 5D with proper adapters. I'm not the only one to notice this issue. The 55/1.2 is the slowest 1.2 lens around. For the most part I found my Zuiko's slow across the range for their advertised f-stop.
Click to expand...

I get the same readings using my OM4 and Zuiko 55/1.2 as I get from my Canon F1 using my FD 55/1.2 AL lens. I have a Nikkor AI-S 55/1.2 around here somewhere, I'll put it on my F100 and see what it says. My old Canon FD concave 35/2 is a tad slower than my Zuiko 35/2, though the old FD is sharper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom