Jump to content

The quality of the Zuiko 50 f/1,4, bad experience


lars_arvid_s.

Recommended Posts

I've got som bad experiences with the Zuiko 50mm f/1,4, which

otherwise - if it wasn't for the poor performance - would be my

standard lens.

 

I've used three different Zuiko 50mm f/1,8, and they all performed

well wide open (after my standards). I've had two different 50mm

f/1,4, both silver-nosed, with serialnumbers around 400 000, and

they were so bad wide open that I had problems focusing, and all the

pictures came out unacceptably soft, even stopped down a stop.

 

I've heard (probably at the Zuiko mailinglist) that lenses with a

higher serial number than 1,1 mill. are much better, but haven't had

the chance to test it out myself.

 

So my questions are these:

What are your experiences with the Zuiko 50mm f/1,4?

Are there a discernible difference between newer and older designs?

How can I buy (and know that it will perform well) a 50mm f/1,4?

(living in Norway aren't always a plus..)

 

Note, I've used about ten different Zuikos and haven't had a problem

with the performance in any of them, except the aforementioned 50mm.

 

Pretty longwinded b.c. of my weak english... Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lars-

 

If you look around the web, a number of people have tested Oly OM lenses. Generally, the Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 was a little better than the Zuiko 50mm f/1.8. However, other than Leica, which charges over $2,000 U.S. for a 50mm f/1.4 SLR lens, all major manufacturers' lenses suffer from some sample variation:

 

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

 

Regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first Zuiko 50mm/1.8 was hazed which stops me entering Zuiko world for 2 years. Then I bought 50/1.4 (107xxx) which is my all time favorite. The color is not up to my Leica Summicron-M 50mm (f=2) but the shadow is more interesting than that from Leica Summicron-M 50mm lens. This is the lens if I do my B&W work. Confessly I don't remember to use it wide open. I don't do any lens testing but just use them. Later I bought Zuiko 28/2.8 new which will challenge all my Leica lenses by color and sharpness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lars,

 

I had a similar experience with my Zuiko 50/1.4. I also have the older, "silver front" type lens. I have found it unacceptably soft at the f/1.4 setting. I don't really think it is any better than the 50/1.8 at the f/2 setting, either. I also found the lens to be very flare-prone, especially when photographing lighted signs at night. There are some situations where flare can provide attractive effects, but usually I do not want it.

 

So, what is the use of an f/1.4 lens that is not usable at f/1.4, and must be stopped down to about f/4 for sharp photos? That is why the 50/1.4 sits on my shelf, rather than on my camera. Supposedly, the later multi-coated versions are improved, but I have not tried one.

 

If you really need a fast lens (and can afford it), I suggest the 50/1.2. The 55/1.2 is cheaper, but does not have a great reputation (I haven't tried one, though). Otherwise, the 50/1.8 is fast enough for most situations, and is optically excellent, lightweight, and inexpensive. I don't think it was just a coincidence that Olympus discontinued the 50/1.4, while continuing to produce the f/1.8 and f/1.2 lenses. It is true that the 50/1.4 lenses from most manufacturers are usually excellent, but based on my own experience and many other user reports, I don't consider the Zuiko 50/1.4 (at least the older, single-coated versions) in that same category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way back when the OM-1 hit the market, I switched from a Pentax screwmount system. I've liked all my Zuikos, including the 50mm f/1.8, but I never felt it was a true match for the Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4. That lens was special. In fact I picked up an old beater Pentax just so I can use the Tak.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never had a problem with mine, G.Zuiko serial number 603906, not a silver nosed one, but not multicoated either. (AFAIK, the information is vague on how to tell with certainty) I do agree with the flare problem, though, you have to be carefull.

<p>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/867601>This image</a> was taken wide open and although because of the DOF, edge sharpness is impossible to judge, there is no doubt it is quite sharp in the centre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own #713xxx, black nose, single coated. Also used a 1047xxx, black nose, multicoated. Obviously, main difference is flare control. The white and brilliant flare of the SC can ruin a picture, but we're talking of an inexpensive pre-1980 lens. Flare and contrast are much better controled on the 1047xxx. No experience with #1100xxx, on which users agree there was quite an improvement. Though I rarely shoot the 713xxx wide open I wouldn't say it is too soft at f2, I got good definition and contrast with superb colour rendition on a flat painted texture using Kodachrome 25 (picture taken during 1984), and never had problems when focusing.

I didn't know this lens had been discontinued as someone stated on this thread, on the contrary it was continuously improved AFAIK.

But if I were to buy another 50mm, a focal lenght which is not my cup of tea, I'd invest on a 50mm f2 macro depending on the value of the rest of the equipment, future plans of the photographer and willingness to invest on discontinued OM system.

Sorry for my weak English too.

 

Fernando

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure exactly when the 50/1.4 was discontinued, but they were not for sale new in the mid-1990's, when I tried to find one. As the entire line is now discontinued, it is a moot point.

 

BTW, another observation about the older 50/1.4's: My example is highly radioactive! I tested mine a few years ago, and it stimulated the Gieger counter more than any other old lens I have tested (enough to scare the co-workers in the lab). Presumably, the original versions were made with radioactive, rare earth glass. These would be a poor choice to use as an improvised loupe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"My (50mm f/1.4) is highly radioactive! I tested mine a few years ago, and it stimulated the Gieger counter more than any other old lens I have tested (enough to scare the co-workers in the lab). Presumably, the original versions were made with radioactive, rare earth glass. These would be a poor choice to use as an improvised loupe."

 

What do you mean by "highly radioactive"? I've never heard of a lens which, if constantly held inches from your face for a period of years, would even generate as much potentially harmful radiation as half a set of dental x-rays. As an aside, for people from the UK, "dentists" are doctors who clean and repair teeth. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, maybe "highly radioactive" was a poorly chosen term. But, it was much "hotter" than any other lens I have checked. I actually wrote to Olympus USA a few years ago and asked them about what type of radiation was produced by these lenses, and whether there was any potential hazard. The reply I received was basically "we have no information."

 

I have heard reports of eye damage (cataracts) from using radioactive "rare earth" telescope eyepieces, which was my reason for warning about the use of this lens as a loupe. I also would not recommend storing it next to your film or printing paper for long periods.

 

For more info on radioactive lenses: http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/radioactive.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

�I have measured the emission of a G.Zuiko 50/1.4 (s/n 129xxx) to 12,900 cpm vs. 40 cpm background. Officially, I would not be allowed to take anything of this activity out of a controlled radiation lab.�

 

The measurement of radiation is a hotly debated topic. And there are a number of factors that determine the danger radiation will pose.

 

This having been said, as a general rule, 75 cpm = 1 mREM/hr. So, your 12,900 cpm would equal 172 mREM/hr.

 

And the U.S Department of Energy operates under the belief that 1 mREM/hr. = .1 mREM/yr. So, 172 mREM/hr. would equal 1.72 mREM/yr.

 

And the DOE standard assumes transmission of radiation at a distance of one meter for a 40 hour work week. So, to absorb even your 1.72 mREM/yr., you would have to have the Olympus lens within one meter of you 40 hours per week each year.

 

Finally, to put this 1.72 mREM/yr. in perspective, Fermilab is the most prestigious institution researching nuclear radiation in the world. Fermilab has set the following as safe dose limits for its workers- whole body, 1,500 mREM/yr. (the DOE limit is 5,000 mREM/yr.); lens of eye, 15,000 mREM/yr.; extremities, 50,000 mREM/yr.; skin 50,000 mREM/yr.

 

So, again, the Olympus lens in question is not 'highly radioactive.' And if I shot Olympus, I would have no fear of owning or using the lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...