Olympus OM lenses Vs. Zeiss

<p>So I want to start by saying that I'm going to be using the lenses in question on a Sony NEX-7 - not an m4/3rds. But I've chosen this forum, because you 4/3rds guys have had a lot more experience in adapting older lenses to your cameras than the rest of us. If this is incorrect placement, feel free to move it, Mr. Mod.</p>

<p>I've been using an OM-series 35mm f/2.8 as my walkaround lens on my NEX for a while now. The colour is excellent, and there is very little CA. However, I get the feeling that the sensor vastly outresolves the lens, as I need to stop down most of the way to avoid getting that hazy, 'coat of film' look over the images. The bokeh is also very harsh, and distortion is not terrible, but is very noticable.</p>

<p>I decided a while back that I was going to replace it with a Zeiss 35mm f/2 M mount. But since then some other expenses have popped up, and I'm not too sure anymore. I've read about how the Zeiss has essentially no distortion at the edges, and I like that. But after considering it, it's not really important. Since I'm using a crop sensor, a small amount of distortion would generally occur off the camera sensor, and I would never see it anyway - and much of what I'm paying for would be wasted.</p>

<p>So now I'm looking at the Olympus OM 35mm f/2 as well. Does anyone have any experience using this lens with a smaller sensor? Specifically, I would like to know if the bokeh is any better, and if the lens still looks hazy wide open. I don't need a 'creamy' bokeh - and I don't expect one from a 35mm lens - but I'd like something that isn't so distracting. I also don't expect the lens to be perfectly sharp at f/2, but 2.8 or 4 seems pretty reasonable to ask.</p>

<p>I've found plenty of reviews of these lenses online, but the problem is that many of the Zeiss reviews, and all of the OM reviews, are done with full-frame cameras, and often film ones at that. Any help you guys can offer would be great.</p>

<p>I used to own the 35f2 when I shot film; and never thought it was particularly high resolution. No experience using it with digital as I sold it just prior to the digital age. It was an ok lens (i liked how it rendered) but it just wasn't biting sharp. I felt the contax 35-70 did a better (though 2 stops slower) job.<br>

Anyways hopefully someone who has actually tried the 35f2 on a high resolution sensor will comment but my gut feeling is that it doesn't have the resolution.</p>

<p>Photozone.de indicates the Oly 35/f2 has greater flare resistance and stopped down sharpness than the f2.8, but their results were based on film rather than a digital sensor, and the f2 model was noted as being excellent in the stopped down sharpness (both resolution and contrast) categories.. I'm wondering if the "wide open haziness" you are seeing isn't perhaps some sort of flare, either because of shooting without a lens hood, or some other reason, or a result of stopping down beyond f8 or so causing diffraction. I remember hearing in another forum about some users having issues with a lack of sharpness & flare using certain film-designed lenses because the digital sensor design (or perhaps it was the bayer filter over the sensor) was maximized to accept rays of light at at the perimeter of the sensor to be hitting it at a specific angle, and they were coming off the rear lens element at a different angle. Anyway, the F2 lens is larger and heavier than the f2.8, weighing in at 245 gm vs 170 gm, and is a lot more expensive.</p>

<p>Stephen, I think the 'haze' (and I have no idea what it's really called) is the result both of an older lens, and lower resolution in general. You are correct in noting that most film lenses project the image differently, but general resolving power seems to be an issue too.</p>

<p>For instance, on my Minolta 58mm f/1.2, I get this haze in my highlights with the lens wide open. It makes images recorded in the daytime (even on overcast days) practically unusable. Every photo looks like I used a weak soft focus filter. I also get the effect with film, but not nearly as drastically. Once the lens is stopped down to f/2.8 or so, the haze is gone from everything but high-contrast or reflective subjects, such as metal in sunlight. By f/5.6, there is no haze anywhere, ever.</p>

<p>I doubt that this is a lens flare issue, as it happens indoors, outdoors, and even when using studio lights with a flag between the light and the camera. I think what's happening is that, since a lens' IQ is generally much lower wide open, the sensor is outresolving the lens, and it is seeing 'lens softness' as 'picture softness.' Once a lens is stopped down, its IQ improves, and the problem goes away. I had none of these issues with my D70, and very few of them with my (long-term loaned) D300, and this is the only reason I can think of.</p>

<p>I'm not worried about whatever lens I get being bitingly sharp. The 35mm f/2.8 is more than sharp enough for me. I guess what I'm really after, short of first-hand experience with the f/2 version on a mirrorless, is info on the wide-open performance, bokeh, and distortion.</p>

<p>Or if you have other 'standard lens' suggestions, that's just as good. I'm attracted to the OM system because the lenses are much smaller than most SLR lenses, but I'd also be willing to consider other brands. I've also considered Contax, but I'm not sure it would be worth spending half the cost of a new Zeiss to get an older one from a funky system with lower resale value, and no warranty. Then again, I do like the look of 70s-80s lenses much more than the look of modern ones, so anything is possible.</p>

<p>The softness of your 35 should basically disappear when stopped down 11/2-2 stops. That's been my experience on both film and film lenses used on digital bodies. Most digital bodies, with a few notable exceptions, aren't yet at the point that they outresolve even good 1970-80s lenses, and even then it is a close call. A couple of friends have been able to show it with the current Leica M9, several claim to do it with Nikon's D700, and I thought I came close using Sigma's Foveon sensor. Most lenses for 35mm film camera bodies exhibit softness at wide open apertures...only a few very expensive ones were optimized in their design to have their best performance wide open...so there's usually a tradeoff between shooting wide open and getting the most desirable bokeh, narrowest DOF and lowest sensor noise, or upping the ISO and stopping down 1-2 stops, slightly increasing sensor noise, DOF, with a change the bokeh, but the sharpness increases pretty dramatically. I've recently been using some older Zeiss glass and it has its own unique characteristics, but compared to Olympus optics of the similar time frame (neither case on micro 4/3 sensors however), I personally favor the Zuiko results in both contrast and resolution...but I usually shoot at each lens' sweet spot (which I've determined by a series of tests for each body/lens combination). And like you, I also like certain earlier lens' effects, often preferring to using some 1950s Leica M lenses on my DLSR. Since I haven't yet used the NEX system I'm pretty unqualified to give advice on what might work well there. I frequently also visit this forum http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=146 to try to keep informed about informed user opinions on mirrorless systems.</p>

<p>I used the 2.8/35 Zuiko for many years on my OM-1 but sold it before I moved to digital. It was okay, but not a great lens in any way. Usually the slower speed version of all lenses is the cheap amateur model and the faster lens is the pro model with vastly higher price and at least somewhat better performance. So it is likely that the 2/35 Zuiko is better than the 2.8. The M Zeiss 35 is probably a very good lens, but it is built for a film rangefinder. I dont have that lens but I do have a somewhat similar Leica M 2/35. It does not work at all well on an m4/3 body. I believe these short M lenses sit too close to the sensor so that the light rays on the edges come at an acute angle and that does not suit digital nearly as well as film. Stopping downhelps a bit but not enough to make it good. Therefore SLR wide angle lenses seem to perform much better on mirrorless digital. Longer lenses do not have this problem and for example the CV75 is very good on the OM-D5, even wide open.</p>

<p>I would never exclude in your shopping selection Canon's <em>moderate wide angle</em> lenses. I have the FD 28mm 2.8, 'small size, solid made, and sharp and budget priced. Have seen the results from the 35mm FD F 2.0 and they are sweet indeed. And,- no small matter,<em>widely</em> available at fair and generous prices plus in good shape for their age.<br /> (Have you 'scoped' your OM lens with a penlight to see if possible one of the elements is hazy, thus reducing contrast.) <br /> KEH has good values in FD manual lenses. <br /> http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35mm/system-Canon-Manual-Focus/category-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses?s=1&bcode=CA&ccode=6&cc=80283&r=WG&f<br /> You need an adapter naturally but that is part of the drilll. <br /> Should you hence expand from walkaround to other longer legacy lenses, there is a huge array of fine FD lenses in the bargain bins and on eBay I expect. <br /> Find a good well tended sample and you are great to go.<br /> Re Bokeh. We don't really know from <em>bokeh</em> my friend. Creamy, dappled, globular,- never notice it myself. Bokehmyopia I expect.<br /> Aloha, gerry</p>

<p>Ilkka, thanks for your input. I never considered the angle of projection. I have seen some gorgeous photos with the various M-mount Zeiss lenses on NEX cameras, but those were all brand-new lenses, and are (supposedly) designed with the M8 and M9 in mind. That could make the older Contax G lenses less of a good deal after all - especially if there is a FF NEX down the road.</p>

<p>Gerry, thanks for chiming in as well. I appreciate the budget options, but I'm looking for something a little higher-end. I was hoping to avoid Zeiss prices though. My own experience with FD glass was that it's fine for the money, but that the more expensive lenses are often not up to the same standards of some of the other brands.</p>

<p>I'm beginnng to think that I'm playing the part of the guy that simply doesn't want to pay for what he wants. I think the best thing for me to do at this point is probably to email KEH to find out their return policy, and then start pulling triggers.</p>

<p>Hello, all-- I have an NEX-7, and my kit consists of five lenses, the Sigma 19, an OM 21/2.8, the Sigma 30, an OM 50/1.8, and and OM 100/2.8. Since I have tested them all, I can give you my opinion with some confidence.<br /><br />I always liked the OM 21, but the Sigma beats it in sharpness and resolution, particularly in the corners.<br /><br />The Sigma 30 is a good lens, but the OM 50 beats it, particularly in the corners. Of course comparing a 30 and a 50 is apples and oranges, but I offer this to indicate that an old film lens can still be very good on digital. The OM lens is more useful too in that each aperture gives a different appearance to the image (sharp center, soft edges at f/1.8, for example, good for portraits). The lens is brilliant at f/5.6-f/11, and still very good at f/16<br /><br />The OM 100 is a beautiful lens with very good results on the NEX.<br /><br />I have owned a number of OM lenses, and there is quite a bit of variation from sample to sample, so it might take more than one try to find a good one.<br /><br /></p>

<p>Carl Zeiss lenses are fantastic. I took the 80mm of my my Hassy and bought an adapter for the E-3 and E30. Absolutely tack sharp and any f-stop, and there was no distortion on the edges. I use the same Zeiss lens on my Canon 7D as a studio/portrait lens.</p>

<p>The only other glass I use for in-house portrait work is the Zuiko 55mm f/1.2. It has a tendency to slightly soften the edges which is great for portrait work.</p>

<p>I used the OM 2/35 on film. I liked it because I like a fast 35, not because it was a great lens. The OM 2/28 was a better lens. According to Gary Reece's OM lens tests, the OM 2/35 was better than the 2.8/35, however.<br>

I would imagine that a Zeiss M would be better still (on film). As you know, what works on film does not always translate to digital. I have a Leica R 2.8/35 (pretty similar optically to the M) which I love on film, but when adapted to a Nikon D700 it did not seem the same. I now use the CV Zeiss 2/35 ZF1.<br>

</p>

<p>John Foster has tested extensivly Zuiko lenses on DSLR try this link,<http://www.biofos.com/cornucop/omz_e330.html>, and look around his site! - David</p>

<p>Softness in older lenses is basically two factors:<br /><br />- Older/nonexistant coatings which help reduce glare/flare and increase contrast. Remember that B&W film naturally has quite a bit more contrast than color film and dramatically more contrast than digital. <br>

- Older designs that are just plain softer. Basically every lens manufacturer working today has access to computers and design practices and materials that even the BEST working 40 years ago couldn't have even drempt of.</p>

<p>Personally, I cannot stand the look of over-sharped, over contrasty "digital" lenses. Maybe for landscapes or macro work, but for everything else a little softness never hurt anything.</p>

<p>The Zuiko 35 f2 has a poor reputation for overall sharpness unlike its 24mm and 28mm cousins which earn universal praise and, unfortunately, high prices to match. It's not rally a bad lens but is reminiscent of the Contax Zeiss early production 25mm f2.8 T* - these were discreetly removed and a re-engineered version released (still in AE mount days) with no fanfair. <br>

Having used Contax SLRs since 1977 and the 645 for the last ten years or so, I have nothing but praise for Zeiss glassware - except of course for the price. Nothing beats their 21mm Distagon, 55mm 1.2 or 85mm 1.2 Planars, and the greatest 70-210 macro-zoom ever made. But they have their weak spots too: old 25mm, 200 ApoSonnar (soft), 60 C Macro, 80-200 (just plain dull) but what amazes me about Zuiko OM lenses is their diminutive size - just compare the Zuiko 28 f2 with the Zeiss 'Hollywood' equivalent! <br>

I acquired a s/h OM2SP with a 24 f2.8 Zuiko a few years ago and love the quality of both items. I then bought the 21mm f2, 35-70 f3.6 and a 55mm f1.2 (late version) which I ditched the moment I found a 50mm f1.2 (stunningly sharp by comparison with the 55's softness). <br>

When I put my Zeiss 55mm Planar on my Olympus E-3, it dominates it - but the Zuiko 50 1.2 (which is almost as sharp) is tiny by comparison. Different optical and engineering solutions but each capable of producing outstanding pictures - and isn't that all that matters?</p>

<p>You might consider the zuiko 28/3.5, which is both very cheap and reputed to be very very sharp, rivaling the monster 28/2. It's a single coated lens, so this may be a problem, but it's pretty close to your ideal 35mm focal length and it should out-resolve any of the zuiko 35's, which are nice lenses, but they're not known for their resolution. For less than $100 off fleabay, it might be worth a shot. There's also a multi-coated 2.8 (which is reputed to be slightly less sharp), and my all-time favorite zuiko, the f/2, which goes for 3-400, but its worth it IMO. </p>

<p>You might consider the zuiko 28/3.5, which is both very cheap and reputed to be very very sharp, rivaling the monster 28/2. It's a single coated lens, so this may be a problem, but it's pretty close to your ideal 35mm focal length and it should out-resolve any of the zuiko 35's, which are nice lenses, but they're not known for their resolution. For less than $100 off fleabay, it might be worth a shot. There's also a multi-coated 2.8 (which is reputed to be slightly less sharp), and my all-time favorite zuiko, the f/2, which goes for 3-400, but its worth it IMO. </p>

<p>Zeiss are better. OM Zuiko are not really that great on digital cameras. It seems fine until you look closer. Modern lenses have better coatings and distortion correction.</p>

<p>Chasing OM lenses for digital applications will result in disappointment.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the comments all. I've actually decided to just sit tight for now ... the lenses that I'm using aren't <em>exactly</em> what I want, but I don't have any complaints about them. And with Sony's recent announcements, I think I'll wait until there is a full-frame NEX 1-2 years from now before I buy any expensive glass, unless something just drops into my lap. I don't really use wide angle lenses much, and I'm almost positive I'll buy said NEX as soon as it comes out, so it makes more sense to wait, and then buy a 50 1.5 or something.</p>

<p>And as far as using the OM glass on digital bodies Bill, I have to disagree with you - but only slightly. While I do agree that modern lenses generally distort less and have less CA, the coatings that make this possible mean most modern lenses have worse colour and tonal range, at least to my eyes. My lowly 35 f/2.8 OM has much better colour than any of the non-Zeiss NEX lenses. But of course you can get sharp images, nice bokeh, or good colour out of a cheap lens - but not really all three. For that, you need the expensive stuff :(</p>

<p>I did pick up a screw-mount Schneider 135 f/3.5 recently, and despite being even older, the colour and sharpness are both much better. Granted that's easier to do in that focal length, but it goes to show you that 'old' doesn't always mean 'worse.'</p>