OM2n vs Leica M or Pentax LX

I'm thinking about selling a Leica M and buying a small manual focus

SLR such as the OM2n. I prefer the SLR viewfinder and the OM has an

exceptional finder. I normally shoot B&W, however color performance

of the optics is a factor.

 

I have 2 questions on optics. Would users consider Olympus glass to

produce cooler color on film than competitors? OM color images I see

on the web tend to show skies a deeper blue than normal.

 

Are the 1980s 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.7 and 135mm f/3.5 exceptional or

just run of the pack optics?

> OM color images I see on the web tend to show skies a deeper blue than normal.

 

You can't use web images to judge optics. Any number of things could have happened to alter the image, starting with development, to scan, to manipulation, to final posting on the web.

 

That said, I don't think you'll find anyone who'd disagree with choosing a 2n.

I apologize for the disconnect between the subject line and questions. While writing my question I decided to restrict questions to OM optics and forgot to edit the subject line.

The lenses ("Zuikos") produce not so much a colder look as a more saturated one. This is

due to

their excellent design, with fewer elements. (I'm talking about the primes here.) The 28mm

f/2.8 you mention has very high contrast. The 50mm f/1.8 varies according to version; the

last, "made in Japan" bezel one from the 1990s is much better. The 135 f/3.5 is a very old

lens which I wouldn't go near; the f/2.8 is said to be better, but I haven't used either.

 

Some old lenses weren't multicoated. These have a letter code like "G", which means 7

elements. Avoid them.

 

I have seen a few examples of photos taken with Leica M, and think their colour rendition

and saturation rather like the better Zuikos.

Forgot to mention, if you're coming from Leica avoid the 35mm f/2 and f/2.8s, which are

unloved. I have a good 35mm shift, but there are plenty of bad examples around - stick to

28mm for your moderate wide.

If you are buying Pentax LX, just be sure you can find someone who can service this camera properly. This camera is not the most reliable Pentax body and expensive and difficult to fix properly. Many LX being serviced actually don't operate properly because the technicans were not qualified.

I've heard the 35mm f/2 is not so good (but I have no personal experience to back this claim up). I do have an old (presumably single-coated) 35mm f/2.8 and I am pleased with it, especially when used at f/8.

 

Of the lenses you mention, I would agree with Frank: for example, the 135/2.8 is better than the f/3.5 version, but there is a noticeable variation in lenses within a given model so I'd say grab what you want, and exchange for another if you have to. I've had some not-so-good lenses, but selling and then buying another of the same model has always given me a better lens. You may find a 135/3.5 which suits you (I may have had a dud sample, but didn't buy another after selling it as I already had a 135/2.8 and so stuck with that - I am guessing that the small size of the f/3.5 version is probably why you want it).

 

The other two lenses (28/2.8 & 50/1.8) are very good IMO.

The LX is a fantastic camera but I've always rated the Olympus lenses to be sharper and produce more contrast and saturated colour than their Pentax equivalents. OM2's are very highly rated and the 28/2.8 and 50/1.8 are quality lenses. The 135/3.5 is average. There are posts in the forum about many of the Zuiko lenses (with a wide range of different opinions) if you trawl through the older posts.

Zuiko prime lenses produce excellent images. On slides the pictures don't look any cooler or warmer than in real life. The only thing I don't like on the Zuikos is the bokeh. It looks harsh.

I always thought my Pentax lenses produced a slightly cooler color than my OM lenses.

I have owned two PentaxLX,s and they were overpriced and unreliable.

Thanks for the answers. What I take home from this discussion is Zuiko's lens quality is variable between lenses/build generations and multicoat optics lean towards high contrast. This info is similar to my previous print and web research. Although I like Leica's natural skin tones overall color seems cool. For examble red seems richer with my Minolta Rokkors. The LX is under consideration due to Takumar's reported image quaility/color balance and the camera's quality, size, and finder. The warning about LX reliability are noted.

This is an insane discussion. Just keep your M leica. The Leica is one of the best designs in

the history of cameras. The OMs may be nice, but Maitani, their designer was trying to

emulate a Leica when he designed the OM system.

 

You can pick up OM gear for next to nothing, so there is no need to sell the Leica. Keep it

and learn how to use it.

Dear DARIUS,

 

At these times of digital thunder, a lot of migrations are taking place within the analog camp. Richard is not the first not will be the last. If you are going to become enraged each time Leicas are sold, you are facing further hardships. If you follow this Olympus forum you'll find several Nikonians going OM.

 

Perhaps it is precisely the Leica feeling of the OM slrs what is most appealing for some people out there. It happens to humans that at some time they become bored with the same gear they used for many years.

 

 

Dear RICHARD,

 

I would like to add a small detail, that may be of interest to you. Olympus was very active in developing different sets of screens for thier OMs. The last one were the Lumi-Micron screens, still available with some effort althogh. They are cristal clear transluscent screens (with central focusing aide of curse), making the difference between the naked eye view and the TTL view, close to zero. They are not very useful for outdoors sunlit subjects, but for interiors they are a delight and powerful edge. I say this just in case you would like to have two OM bodies (the OM2n or not "n" is one of the "classics" that will last for years and the minty ones are sold at very affordable prices).

 

Unfortuantely I am not a lens comparizon expert, but take into account that each Zuiko OM lenses had several different runs of production, each one with different qualities. For an in-depht test of most runs go here:

 

http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm

 

What I can say for sure is that the cheapo cheapo 50mm 1.8 "Made in Japan", still remains as the best or one of the best 50 ever. The 24mm 2.8 is nothing less than superb.

 

BTW I have posted this thread to the Rangefinderforum.com.

 

Cheers,

 

Ruben

I used Olympus OM1s and Zuiko lenses for 12 years. I also used Pentax lenses too on an MX/ME. I still use the MX (more on that later).

 

I loved the OM1 - nice bright viewfinder, lovely camera to use, reliable lightmeter but not always mechanically reliable - on/off switch went on mine twice. When I used print film with the Zuikos, I was a very happy bunny - they were usually sharp, with great colour. Not so good wide open though (with the exception of an early silver nosed 50mm 1.8 I had - lovely lens) but they really behaved themselves from f4 onwards - unlike the Nikkors I use now, which you can use with confidence wide open - and I mean wide open.

 

So, I had the 21 mm 3.5, 24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8 (x3), 35mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8, 50mm macro 3.5, 85mm f2, 135mm 3.5, 200mm f5, 35-70mm f4 zoom.

 

Where I went off the Zuikos was when I moved to slide film. They were just too contrasty for modern films like Velvia. My favourite Zuiko through my early slide film days was a single coated 24mm 2.8. Very low distortion (slightly less I think than the Nikkor 2.8, and also less flare than the AI and early AF versions). Getting blow ups done from slides on Zuikos reveals how the contrast can inhibit the detail. Not with the single coated 24mm 2.8. The first 28mm 2.8 was great, but the two versions I bought after (long story) never matched the first one in performance.

 

The 21mm 3.5 was also single coated and it took crappy colour photo's but superb B&W. Again, very sharp, well controlled distortion but the colour rendition was very poor indeed. The 35mm 2.8 was a much underrated lens - again, no great shakes wide open but at f8 very nice.

 

The 50mm 1.8 silver nose was sharp, colour rendition wasn't good on print film but really nice on slide film. The 50mm 3.5 macro was very, very sharp and took great B&W close ups (I never used this lens with colour film). It wasn't good at all wide open though at distance (better closed down). The 85mm f2 I had totally undermined the reputation of this lens as mine was totally crap at all apertures and colour rendition was poor.

 

The 135mm 3.5? Forget it - contrast, contrast and (wait for it) more contrast but not very sharp at all (nicely made though).

 

The 200mm f5 is a real star of a lens - even in colour and B&W, my single coated version was great - don't bother with the f4 - the f5 is great. Honest

 

The 35-70mm f4 is also a great lens for colour, but in B&W I wasn't so keen. It's very sharp at all focal lengths, but keep the apertures at f5.6 - f11.

 

To be honest, I have to laugh when Nikon users praise the FM3a ( I have one of these now) as being 'small and compact'. Nothing beats the feel of the OM1 in my opinion - even with a motordrive it's small, light and unobtrusive with a 97% view in the finder (not 93% like the FM3a). I just wish I could attach Nikkors to it - if I could I'de still be using the OM1.

 

As for Pentax, I used a lot of the M series at first and to be honest I think that the M series were optically inferior to the Zuikos. The A series lenses were another matter - the 28mm 2.8 Pentax (not the Takumar) is a decent performer and I feel it matches the Zuiko 28mm 2.8 in every department. I had a Pentax f2 50mm A lens and I felt that it was a very good lens to be honest for such a small cost. I currently have the fabled 70-210mm f4 A zoom which is a fine lens by any standard - including Nikkor.

 

I got a Pentax MZ5n and got the f4 28-70mm AL zoom and it was here that I realised that Pentax were moving forwards. This is a great lens - it's cheap but very sharp - use it with any film - colour or B&W and be amazed. This plasticky zoom can pummel prime Zuikos into the ground. Can I also say the K series lenses from Pentax are something else - if you can get ones with good clear optics these are the ones to use if you want to go retro. Be careful though because although the build quality exceeds anything currently built, they are getting old and the newer Pentax coatings are much better.

 

But do you know what I really like? That I can use the 20-35mm FA f4 zoom, the 50mm 1.4 FA, the 43mm 1.9 Ltd, the 28mm 2.8 FA on my 1970's MX. The modern Pentax lenses are optically superb and beat the pants off the older Zuiko range. The AF Pentax 28mm makes mincemeat of the first AF 28mm 2.8 Nikkor. You could use the FA range on an LX Richard.

 

As for my Nikkors, the only one I've had an issue with is the 24mm 2.8 AI (flares too easily) and the 24mm 2.8 AFN (utter rubbish - it has more flare than a 70's disco floor). The AIS version I have is simply superb and I should have got it sooner. Silly me.

 

I also have a Nikon FE (second hand)as well as the FM3a. The Nikons I have are bigger, heavier than the OM1s or MXs but the build quality is high too. They are built like tanks. I moved to Nikon manual cameras because the manual lenses are better than the Zuikos. The Nikkors and the Pentax FA range all produce better blow ups from slides than the Zuikos. Even the plastic 35mm AFN f2 I have is better than the 35mm 2.8 Zuiko. If I'd known this, I would have bought Nikon earlier for the optics - not necessarily for the cameras.

When you buy a camera system you are buying into the designers world view and I found that the OM1 was just so simple to use. The MX is different and slows you down.

 

This is my experience Richard. If I were you I'd stay with the Leica, and try to get one or two modern lenses with it. Nikkor lenses are superb for B&W, a little cool for colour, but just put an A2/81A filter over them and everything is fine.

 

Optically however, I think that you'd be taking step downwards - the Zuiko designs are showing their age now.

 

Mark

Ruben is correct, the appeal of a classic OM is it's Leica-like size, unusually high refinement and huge, high mag viewfinder. Due to glasses and diopter correction I'm seeking a more user friendly finder than my SRT 101 or M6. In low light a Leica viewfinder is helpful but I prefer a 95% plus view with a high mag finder accurately framimg a 28mm, 50mm and 135mm without external finders.

 

Mark is not alone on his views of Zuiko optics. In the past I read similar comments concerning color and/or reports of blocked up shadows/highlights due to contrast. However, the author Mike Johnson highly regards the 50mm f/2.0 macro for B&W. Zuiko optics seem to vary in character unlike my SLR Minolta glass.

 

A Pentax LX may be the logical classic camera upgrade to my SRT-101 I've used for 38 years. Thanks for all the good information from OM users.

Well, I've used both systems, and if it was a simple either/or choice, I would stick with the

Leica. The only reason I don't shoot Leica now is that I use a Canon EOS digital SLR, intsead of

film. One thing, if you do decide to get an OM system, you can buy adapters to put the OM

lenses on a Canon EOS digital body. The EOS system is great in that you can use a huge

variety of lenses: Nikon F, OM, Contax, M42 Screw mount, Leica R, to name a few.

 

Personally, I think the best thing you can do for your photography these days is shoot digital.

DIOPTER CORRECTION:

OM1 and 2 have external diopters, while OM4 OM3 OM4Ti and OM3Ti have BUILT IN diopter adjustable correction and the Ti models come already with Lumi-Micron screens. OM4Ti although more expensive than OM2 OM2n, is quite another classic cult camera. An Exc or even Bargain body from Keh will lower the price and you still have a lasting camera.

Cheers,

Ruben

Richard wrote "...Mike Johnson highly regards the 50mm f/2.0...". That lens is huge,

expensive and hard to find. Along with the 21mm f/2 and 90mm f/2, it's one of the cult

lenses. I didn't mention them because (i) you have Buckley's chance of finding them at any

reasonable price and (ii) although the 21 is very compact for a reflex lens of that focal

length, none of them is compact compared to the typical Leica M lens.

 

Of *course* you will have trouble printing a normal-contrast scene from a high-contrast

film like Velvia. That film is meant for low-contrast scenes or low-contrast lenses. With a

decent lens under normal lighting, try Astia F.

 

And yes, the 50mm f/1.8 and 28mm f/2.8, just like the equivalent Leica M lenses, are best

stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6. I can tell you that my 100 f/2 and 21mm f/2 are good wide-

open and excellent at f/2.8. The fact that the OM system offered different lenses for

different purposes is hardly a disadvantage.

 

Perhaps, like a lot of B&W shooters, you have become addicted to lousy glass. I once

bought a Mamiya TLR system based on its reputation and was horrified by the veiling flare

everywhere and very low contrast. Its reputation, of course, has mainly been fueled by B&W

shooters who want to use the lens instead of film and development choice to control the

contrast. If that is you then I don't think you would be happy with Zuikos or Takumars

(which were all superbly coated and are even contrastier).

As others have stated, I wouldn't sell that M until after you've owned either the LX or OM-2n for a couple of months. I've had OM's since the mid 70's and the M's since the early 90's and have been through most all of the Zuikos and "normal" Leica lenses.<p>

 

Be careful of the LX's, as was pointed out. Make sure they've been CLA'd right before buying. They're not cheap. Great featured camera, great finder. Especially nice removable heads. Weather sealed. I'd love one.<p>

 

My Readers-Digest Zuiko lens review<p>

 

Longer lenses<p>

 

135/2.8 and 85/2 are my favorites. But only the 90/2 is the equal to my M-Elmarit 90/2.8. The Zuiko's are nice, but lack that 3-D look. The 85/2 is a great, wide-open portrait lens.<p>

 

Standard<p>

 

50/2 Macro for super-high quality, 50/1.2 for bokeh, super-cheap $10-20 50/1.8 "made in japan" for practicality.<p>

 

Wide Angle<p>

 

40/2 Overpriced. Good performer, but poor price-to-image-quality ratio. Super-tiny.<br>

35/2.8 (better than the 35/2, IMO, esp the earlier SC f/2.8 for B&W).<br>

28? Nothing has ever lept out at me. Many love the f/2.0. The f/2.8 and f/3.5 typically have middle-of-the-pack comments and performance.<br>

24? f/2.8 was my favorite for many years, but I swear by the f/2.0 now. Love that finder view and the lens is very good. Not a Summicron, but good.<br>

21? Had the tiny f/3.5 for 20 years.....superb, esp at f/8. Soft wide open. f/2.0? Superb, but not worth the $6-800, IMO.<br>

16/3.5? One sharp sucker, tiny, tiny...<p>

After working with a computer all day I enjoy the wet process. Some of us prefer the smooth/sharp/deep look of fiber B&W prints. I can't disagree with Darius comments but our tools tend to be very personal.

 

Frank makes good points about the cost of OM cult optics but quality Mandler optics are $500 plus and in my experience the print results too similar to a $35 Minolta MC Rokkor of the same design generation. Leica Mandler designs are unique for the lens density/size, center sharpness @ 1 stop wider than most competitors and nice OOF effects. However, I once used a 60s Minolta MC 35mm f/2.8 which was no worse and arguable better than a Leica 35mm v2 cron.

 

Skip gives good advice. After I sold a 35mm cron to liquidate my M kit I decided I wasn't ready to part with it. I replaced the $550 cron with a much less expensive 40mm to justify/lower ownership costs. It is a fine lens and good match for the 90. The Leica Tele-Elmarit has less contrast than my Minolta lenses but makes nice B&W portraits.

 

The OM finder and ergonomics are outstanding and have qualities I am looking for. Some optics are excellent but??????. I tend to believe LX/Pentax optics have the edge on Zuiko glass. The LX is not an OM but is closer than my SRT or a Nikon F3.

 

I have 3 SLR bodies and wish to simplify without a practical quality drop to a more user friendly finder, small body, taking advantage of the current low prices for quality classic cameras.

I am impressed with my "dirt cheap" OM Zuiko 35mm f/2.8 (marked as G.Zuiko but not silvernose - I'm guessing it might be SC but I'm really not sure).

 

I got good detail in the shot below (see link).<div></div>

Here is the uncropped image...<div></div>

These lenses (the OM Zuikos) may not be as good as some on the planet, but when people tell you that they are not good enough for full frame digital then I think you are being misled...

I don't know why the 35mm f/2.8 gets slammed - the one I have is very very good (it is way better than the 35mm f/2 silvernose I have). Great contrast and sharpness. The 200mm f/5 is a real sleeper and it is cheap!

 

My wife and I travel world wide with a couple of OM-1 bodies and the 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.8 and the 85mm f/2, all superb! We just came back from Greece and are very pleased with the reults. The 35mm lens got the most use. She shot UC100 at EI 64 and I shot HP5 at EI 200. For super wide shots I used a Leica IIIf with a 21mm Voigtlander lens. I used the 855mm quite a bit.

 

I also use Leica M cameras. I would never sell the M gear. Keep it and get an OM1 or OM2 and a couple of the better OM lenses: the 85mm is one to get as is the 24mm f/2.8. Since my wife won't use Leica M gear I don't travel with it; I use a black OM1 body so I can share lenses with my wife. When I'm by myself I leave the OM gear at home and take the Leica M4-P & M3 with me.

 

Forget the LX. Service is a problem.