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

Beautiful. And eerily familiar - when Mike Johnston reviewed the Contax Aria in photo techniques he also published a photo of his on Plus-X of a corn field - I think taken with the 50/1.4 that for some reason this reminds me of.

Lovely. Both the 21/2 and the 24/2 are excellent lenses, aprticularly with slightly grainier films.

Marty


Trius said:
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)
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...
Click to expand...

There's no increased distance from the flange to the focal plane - the Canon distance is slightly less than the Olympus distance, so the adapter can keep the distance correct and thus allow the lens to focus at infinity.

Interestingly, I've used some of my Olympus lenses on my 5DII with an adapter, and I seem to get over-exposure - but the same lenses on an OM body give the correct exposure, and agree with similar lenses on other camera systems. I haven't had time to investigate fully, though.

As for a 55/1.2 actually being f/2.8, I really think that's implausible, and there has to be another explanation - I can believe it's a bit slow, but not two stops or more. For it to really be f/2.8, the maximum aperture at the optical center of the lens would have to be of much smaller diameter than it actually is, or something else would have to be absorbing more than three quarters of the transmitted light.

I'm also sure it's not true that all Zuiko lenses are about a stop slower than they're claimed to be - I've got a lot of them, and when I'm out shooting Olympus and Leica gear together with the same speed film, I shoot at the same exposures (often from incident metering with a hand-held meter), and I get accurately exposed results. Again, the Zuiko lenses might be slightly slower and the exposure within the film latitude, but they're definitely nothing like a stop slower - with the amount of slide film I've shot, I really would have noticed something as massively incorrect as that.

Something strange is happening with Zuiko lenses mounted on a 5D, that much I can accept (though I've no idea what), but it really can't be the case that the lenses are massively slower than marked.

Best,
 
Oh, someone mentioned the 24/2 - I've had one, and I think the sharpness and contrast of the 24/2.8 is better (the 24/2.8 is one of the gems of the range, in my opinion), so I sold the f/2 and kept the f/2.8.

And I love the 21/3.5 too - it's a tiny little lens, and a great performer (21mm is one of my favourite FLs)

Best,
 
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...

What metering pattern did you use on the 5D? I've found that center-weighted, spot or partial is more accurate with non-EF mount lenses on adapters. For example with evaluative metering, exposure may be OK wide open but overexpose at smaller apertures. I've also found the opposite with different lenses, ie. underexposure wide open but OK when stopped down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom