How are Olympus OM lenses vs Nikon AI and Canon FD?

<p>I currently have a good range of Canon FD lenses with a couple of canon bodies. (no L lenses=[)<br /> However I recently picked up a Olympus OM2 and I am very impressed with it.</p>

<p>How good are the Olympus Zuiko manual lenses compared to the same vintage Canon and Nikon lenses?</p>

<p>Also, what are the "good" oly lenses?</p>

 

<p>Here's a link for lens comparisons across manufacturers: http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylens.jsp</p>

 

<p>great link stephen, /bookmarked</p>

<p>There are quite a few Zuiko lenses that are very good. Most of the wides are very good. The 50mm f/1.4 multicoated lenses, especially with a serial number over 1.1m are very good, the 85/2 is good, especially the later multicoated versions, the 100/2 is excellent, excellent, excellent a long with a number of other lenses. There are a few good 3rd party lenses made in Olympus OM mount (Sigma 28mm f/1.8 among others).</p>

<p>that survey is a bit random??? I mean, what's with the variations in the build quality of the OM lenses??</p>

<p>anyway, OM lenses are just about the best 35mm manual focus lenses you can get. The limiting factor with these lenses is most likely to be the photographer, not the glass.</p>

<p>Agree with Matthew's choices above and William's statement that they are about the best you can get. Also the 35/2 and 40/2 lenses. The bokeh and color of the 85/2 is unsurpassed by anything. As with any brand's lenses in the 20-30 year old range, inspect each one carefully. There's bound to be more variation in quality of individual lenses than a brand name variation at this point in time, IMO.</p>

<p>Also Tokina's ATX lineup in OM mount is a great choice.</p>

<p>"OM lenses are just about the best 35mm manual focus lenses you can get"....If you ignore Leica & Zeiss (Contax) of course.....</p>

<p>I think this question may run and run! I've used the Olympus OM system for over 25 years and all my lenses are prime Zuiko's. I'm happy with it and I'm pleased with the results I get. I shoot colour negative film and about 50% of my 6x4 prints end up in an album. A few shots per year end up as 50cm x 30cm prints on my wall (that's the the largest size I can handle in my darkroom). My favourite lenses? The 24mm f2.8 and the 50mm f1.8 because they fit with my favourite subject, landscapes (for which the 24mm is indispensible). On safari? Of course the long lenses (135mm f2.8, 200mm f4, 300mm f4.5). The point is that all these lenses will produce images that could end up as the big prints on my wall. The main thing, apart from good technique, is being in the right place at the right time. I absolutely know when I'm looking at a scene that will photograph well: the subject and above all the lighting just look right. I think: in a couple of months, in my darkroom, this is going to make it to a big print and I can visualise what it is going to look like. I've never taken a picture where I've thought of the print: that's OK but it would have been a great picture if the lens had been a tad sharper. I have thought: it's out-of-focus, the horizon is not horizontal, there's flare or something moved. I've even thought: damn! no film in the camera but I've never been able to blame the lens sharpness! It doesn't stop the debate however! The sharpest lenses (at around f8) are my 50mm and 24mm and if other maker's lenses are sharper, I think the difference will be academic. I'm amazed at how good they are. Gary Reese carried out a superb and comprehensive set of tests on all the Olympus lenses (and other lenses too). The main advantage of his work is that he had a reproducible set up so the results between lenses can be compared. If you search his name on this website you will find the current link to his work. He conclusively showed that if you want the get the absolute best from a lens, you need aperture and mirror prefire, to minimise camera shake.</p>

<p>I wasn't ignoring Leica & Zeiss lenses.<br>

In most cases OM lenses are as good; and in many cases, better</p>

<p>My OM collection isn't nearly as large as some of my others so I can't compare all of them. The 50/3.5 is excellent at all distances. The 100/2.8 is nice and compact and very good for portraits. The 135/3.5 might be the least expensive Zuiko except for the 50/1.8 but I find it very good. I have only used my 28/3.5 and 35/2.8 Zuikos a little. Both seem fine. The 200/4 doesn't get much praise even though mine is sharp. Some of the older Zuiko lenses are not as sturdily bullt as my pre-AI Nikkors or FD SSC Canons. A Zuiko lens in good condition will give similar performance to that of another company's lens of a similar speed.</p>

<p>When the entire lineup is considered the differences are few. I've used OM system Zuikos, Canon FD and Nikkors. All have very good lenses... and a few not so good. The main differences are in specialty lenses, such as the perspective correction lenses.</p>

<p>The subjective issue of bokeh... that's always going to be tricky. I'd give a slight edge to OM-era Zuikos and some Canon FDs. While a handful of Nikkors have very good bokeh, most strike me as being a bit harsh.</p>

<p>Ditto, the Gary Reese tests. Probably among the most useful online.</p>

<p>Timely question, I just read a comparison posted to another form on <strong><a href="http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2009/06/comparing-legacy-35mm-adapted-fifties.html">this blog</a> </strong> testing 50mm lenses from FD and OM.</p>

<p>I have always like zuiko lenses so it was just a verification of what I already believed. I will borrow one of the example photographs from it: the OM lens is the top, the FD is the bottom</p>

<p><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UFDhrGObeFc/Si5srTIqxbI/AAAAAAAAA9w/RQXLnrn_W5Y/s400/f1.8-focusPoint.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="287" /></p>

<p>I love my 135/2.8. It's my favorite lens, ever.</p>

<p>Here is an example: http://crazybutable.com/photolog/?showimage=768</p>

<p>"In most cases OM lenses are as good; and in many cases, better"</p>

<p>...sounds like an OM user with rose tinted glasses. I am not a brand loyalist. I simply regard all cameras & lenses as tools for a job.</p>

<p>I have used all the 80's mf systems and more importantly spent 8 years selling all of them and 100's of each brand passed through my hands. The OM lenses, as lovely as they are, are without any doubt in my mind the least well built and least robust of all the mf lens systems.</p>

<p>An amateur, even a fairly heavy user, would though never realise this. If the lenses are used daily and with heavy use, even if they are well looked after, I am afraid the OM lenses give up the ghost long before the FD, AI, Pentax K, Minolta MC/MD, Contax & Leica lenses. I had a far higher percentage of OM lenses needing attention or repair than any of the other brands.</p>

<p>The Nikkor & Leica R lenses are without doubt, the most robust of all the brands and for the image quality alone, I am afraid the Contax & Leica R lenses are a league above all the others.</p>

<p>cheers Steve.M.</p>

<p>Hi</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The OM lenses, as lovely as they are, are without any doubt in my mind the least well built and least robust of all the mf lens systems .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the above tends to sound quite as much like the generalization you criticized above.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>An amateur, even a fairly heavy user, would though never realise this. If the lenses are used daily and with heavy use, even if they are well looked after, I am afraid the OM lenses give up the ghost long before the FD, AI, Pentax K, Minolta MC/MD, Contax & Leica lenses. I had a far higher percentage of OM lenses needing attention or repair than any of the other brands.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is an interesting point ... considering there is so little to go wrong with them I would be interested to know how? I must say that there are significant differences in build quality between different FD lenses (as if there was a professional and "occasional user" category. It is easily visible and feelable in the handling too. I think also the Nikon E series lenses need to be excluded from your group as well.</p>

<p>Mechanical issues aside, how have you found the optical performance of the lenses?</p>

<p>"That is an interesting point ... considering there is so little to go wrong<br />with them"</p>

<p>You may think lenses are pretty simple items, that is until you try to strip one down. I have found older OM lenses to often have problems that others have far little of. For example, the aperture rings of OM lenses often become slack & loose with age, some become unusable. The OM lenses also seem less well sealed to the ingress of both moisture and dust. Several OM lenses I have had, have been full of dust, and also balsam separation issues. I also have found diaghram blade issues with many OM lenses.</p>

<p>In my 30+ years of photography, almost any camera & lens has a blend of pros & cons. When you gain advantages on one side you usually also gain disadvantages on the other.</p>

<p>The OM lenses are lovely, with small size and weight, but the trade off, is the lighter build quality gives issues when the OM lenses are older or well used. It is the heavier lenses generally that often have better overall build and less issues with age and useage. The Nikkors and FD are fantastic in this respect, also the Leica R lenses.</p>

<p>The image Q of the OM lenses is IMO terrific, but also slightly misleading. Many of them have very high contrast which on first look is great, but tends to hide some lack of resolution. I also have found the colour reproduction to be less good than Contax (Zeiss) & Leica especially.</p>

<p>I have spent approx 30 years shooting transparencies and have kept returning to Zeiss lenses and Leica. Possibly the most underestimated of all lenses are Pentax K. The earlier ones have stunning build, handling & performance.</p>

<p>cheers Steve.</p>

<p>"The limiting factor with these lenses is most likely to be the photographer, not the glass"</p>

<p>This is so true and forgotten with all these 'which lens is best' type of threads. 100% of photographers would do better to forget 'which lens is best' and think much more about: 'how can I improve my technique'.....</p>

<p>Steven</p>

<p>thankyou for addressing my questions.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have spent approx 30 years shooting transparencies and have kept returning to <strong>Zeiss</strong> lenses and <strong>Leica</strong> . Possibly the most underestimated of all lenses are Pentax K. The earlier ones have stunning build, handling & performance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well, I think that you've mentioned the Rolls Royce there (and they still make the jet engines as far as I know :-) I have a fondness for pentax K as well ... but all mine are now gone.</p>

<p>FD lenses can be very good or rather average. the following are really good but were not L series in the FD range 17 F4, 24 F2, 35 F2, 50 F1.4, 85 F1.8 35 F2.8 TS, 100 F2, 135 F2, 200 F2.8. In those days the L series was much more limited than today but the lenses were outstanding - the 85 F1.2 and 300 F2.8 being perhaps the best two. Any of the listed FD lenses was at least on a par with the OM lenses ans some were better. Leica and Contax lenses produce (for me at least) a better image although they are not necessarily better on measured technical paramaters such as MTF. I think Leica and Contax have a great compromise of edge sharpness, contrast and colour. In general the Contax and Leica rangefinder lenses are better than the SLR lenses although the Contax 50mm f1.7 is outstanding.</p>

<p>Thank you for all your responses. I think I will try to put together a small kit of 2-3 lenses. Probably a 24, 50, and a zoom. Unfortunately I have a OM4 on order allready.. I guess im hooked ;)</p>

<p>"I wasn't ignoring Leica & Zeiss lenses.<br /> In most cases OM lenses are as good; and in many cases, better"<br>

I used OM cameras, as an amateur, for 30 years, which shows how happy I was with the equipment. As time went on I did eventually have mechanical issues with both cameras and lenses, but can't say whether this would have been better with any other system. At the time I sold off last year, my lenses were Zuiko 28f2, Zuiko 50f2 macro, and Tamron SP80-200f2.8 ie some of the best-regarded optics for OM.<br>

While selling off my film stuff, I impulsively bought a Leica R body. Then of course I had to get a lens (35f2.8 elmarit) and ran a film through it. Believing that OM lenses were as good as any, I had thought I was just engaged in a quick experiment before I sold on the Leica stuff. I was very surprised to find that even on this first, very casually shot film, I obtained results that no way in 30 years had I ever obtained with OM lenses. Needless to say, I've not sold the Leica. In my, very amateur opinion, there is a clear difference between Leica R and OM, and you don't need to stare through a loup to see it. Sorry.</p>

<p>Nick, I've also first hand experience of Leica and Olympus optics, and IMO there's no clear winner. Well manufactured samples of good lens designs from virtually all manufacturers are capable of delivering everything a photographer can handle. </p>

<p>I've been a professional photographer for 38 years and along with my Hasselblad system, I used the OM system ever since it first came out. Despite one poster's comments on the durability of OM lenses, I never had any problems with them. I even took them on a 3-month trip around the world, on which I took 15,000 pictures. I took as many as 498 shots in one day on that trip. I still use the same cameras and lenses today – with never a problem or repair.<br>

As for sharpness, I never had any complaints. The only thing that made the Hassy lenses potentially sharper looking was the larger format, with which I could blow up prints to 60 X 80 inches for airport displays.</p>

<p>Darin,</p>

<p>If you like OMs with their distinctive handling (you either love it or you can't stand it) then don't fret about the glass. The system has been used by countless photographers, professional and amateur over the years. I know of full-time stock, motorsport, national newspaper, celebrity/portrait/wedding/studio, coffee table book and even war photographers that worked with them for years. Some still do. Douglas Dubler wrote <a href="http://www.phototechmag.com/previous-articles/jul-dubler99.htm">a flattering article</a> for Photo Techniques when the system was at its peak.</p>

<p>I like the 65-200mm and have the 35-105mm too but use them rarely. The prime lenses are where it's at. Some people reckon the faster version at each focal length was the 'pro' spec lens, but the humbler versions rarely disappoint. Try not to get caught up in the SC v MC (single v multicoating) red herring. Most of my favourite photos have been taken with a well-worn 35mm f2.8 lens or the bargain basement 50mm f1.8. Lots of info here:</p>

<p>http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/index.htm</p>

<p>Trying to detect the difference between brands is probably impossible and a complete waste of time and film. You know the old saying about bad workman and his tools?</p>

<p>Just use them and enjoy them, and tell us about it.</p>