OM1/OM2 lenses

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>I have a small collection of RF cameras (Konica S2 and S3, Hi-Matic 7s and 9, Yashica Electro GSN, Olymous 35RC and soon a Konica IIIa). I have always preferred RF cameras to SLRs. I have an assortment of SLRs and DSLRs and have never really liked using them. I even had an Olympus E500 that I really disliked quite a bit (a tiny viewfinder is a big problem for me). Anyway, all that changed when I picked up an OM1n and most recently an OM2n. I have fallen in love with these two cameras. Each is outfitted with a 50/1.8 (one of them the "Made in Japan" version).</p>

<p>What would you the kind folks of the Olympus/Four Thirds forum recommend for a lens that would give me the kind of performance I get with the better RF cameras I have. The 50/1.8 is nice and sharp but is there anything for the OM that would compete with the likes of the Hexanon on the S2 or S3 and the Rokkor from the Hi-Matics. I'm partial to B/W street photography. From what I gather searching this board and some Googling there is a good deal of disagreement about the 50/1.4 vs the 50/1.8. I'd think the 55/1.2 would be comparable or perhaps the 40/2. Any suggestions?</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>Oh yeah I forgot to mention the 55/1.2 is a bit spendy for me. So everything above still applies but I thing I need to add "reasonably priced". </p>

[nicholas_herndon]

<p>The OM 40/2 is really pricey due to collector status. I'm not too fond of the 35/2.8...it's okay, but not great. The 28/2 is unparalleled, but expect to spend between $300-$400. Truth be told, for price/performance ratio, you already have the best OM Zuiko lenses available--the 50/1.8s.<br>

My personal preferences: 28/2, 50/1.4 (later version), 85/2, 135/3.5.</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>I suspected the 50/1.8 would be the bang for the buck leader. It is quite sharp and seems to do a good job with B/W. It is reasonably fast and can focus pretty close. It seems like a good alternative to the 4o and 45mm 1.7 and 1.8's that are on my rangefinders. It is as nice as the Rokkors on my 2 Hi-Matics but not quite in the same league as the the 2 Konicas. </p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>The tendancy is to compare wide open performance. Most RF cameras have 2.8 lenses. If you stop the 50mm down to 2.8, you might find yourself in the same class as the others. Obviously, every make has it's own strong points, and the Konicas may just perform better in one area that you are especially sensitive to. </p>

[ishi_p]

<p><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070311095348/http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm">http://web.archive.org/web/20070311095348/http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm</a></p>

 

 

 

<p>It may depend more on the sample, but the 1.4 is i think (on the whole) sharper wider open than the 1.8. They made so many changes though. Even the late "made is japan" 1.8s went through diffident coating phases. I haven't used the 1.4 much, but most 1.4s get sharper much faster than 1.8s I think?. I tend not to worry and go for the look of the lens. How it renders detail or out of focus areas, the character.<br>

<br /><br>

IMO the 1.8 has more even contrast across the frame. <br>

<br /><br>

If your going to make sure of a good 1.4 maybe you'd consider the 35-70mm f3.6 for not much more, It gives me more to play with, depends what, how, and when you shoot I guess. I sold mine and got another once i got back into film again. Beauty, 8 blades and very good performance. Better than the 35mm, plus you get 70. Not small, but nice to use. </p>

<br />

 

 

<div></div>

[george_shihanian]

<p>Good advice so far. You already do have one of the best lenses with regard to comparisons with those RFs. My other personal favorites are 35/2, 50/1.4, 55/1.2, 85/2 . For zooms I like the 35-70/ 3.5-4.5, it's a great walk-around lens, as it's really not all that much bigger than a 50/1.8, and the 35-105/ also 3.5-4.5 . The 40/2 is a much over-hyped lens that really isn't all that sharp but has retained a cult status, being one of the rarest OMs, it's become a status symbol that someone can say- "Look what I can afford." Kind of like what a Leica snob would buy if he used Olympus OMs.</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>The more I look at the more I am convinced that either the 50/1.8 or the 50/1.4 will be the ticket. The 50/1.4 is really attractive as it gives me a significant advantage (light wise) over the 40/1.8, 45/1.7 and such that sits on all of my RF cameras. From what I have seen in people's samples the 50/1.4 seems to have better bokeh than the 50/1.8 which seems a bit...harsh?</p>

[jim_baker6]

<p>I don't think there are any 'bad' Olympus 50mm lenses. Look at <a href="http://www.photographyreview.com">www.photographyreview.com</a> and you will find many favourable comments on the f1.8. Several reviewers say the Olympus 50mm f2 MACRO is the best 50mm (e.g. look in the above mentioned website). I have a f1.8 ('Japan' only) and the MACRO. Maybe the MACRO is better but to be honest I think you have to search to find any differences optically. My f1.8 is more handy so it's the lens I use normally. I only use the MACRO for...macro! </p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<blockquote>

<p>Most RF cameras have 2.8 lenses. If you stop the 50mm down to 2.8, you might find yourself in the same class as the others.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In fact most of the fixed lens RF cameras that I have are 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9. The notable exception in my collection is a gorgeous Olympus 35RC (which coincidentally has a 2.8 lens).</p>

[jeff_guthrie]

<p>I got into OM cameras a few months ago, and so far I have built up a good collection of lenses. At the moment I have the 21/3.5, 24/2.8, 28/2, 35/2, 40/2, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 55/1.2, 35-70 zoom, and the 90/2 macro. As you probably know, some of these lenses are quite expensive, but, amazingly enough, my most-used lens is the $10 50/1.8. The next favorite is the 40/2, because of it's small size and field of view. My final favorite is the 90/2 macro; it is the best lens of any make which I have ever used.<br>

If I could have only 3 lenses, they would be the 24/2.8, 50/1.8, and 90/2 macro. If I could have only 1, then it would be the 35-70 zoom. Olympus zooms are under-rated, they are as wonderful as the primes, and absurdly cheap. I ordered a 24-48 zoom today, and I'm looking forward to putting it through it's paces.</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>I have been looking at the 24.2.8 and the 28/2.8 because I do like to shoot WA from time to time. I have heard about the 90/2 and that one is in my wish list. I hadn't even considered any zooms. As a general rule i have always tended to stay away form them. It's nice to know that they are good quality and reasonably priced.</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>Go with a later version of the 50/1.4. Anything that is marked MC on it OR that has a serial number over 1.1 million is the ticket. The earlier single coated 50/1.4s are nice for B&W (which you want to do), BUT they were deffinitely much softer then the later versions. I tested a single coated 50/1.4 against a later multicoated 50/1.4 and the MC version was much sharper wide open on down through the range.<br>

The 50/1.8 made in japan version of the Zuiko lens was the best of the 50's, wide open and stopped down (the 50/1.4 MC and 50/1.8 mij were basically identical starting around f/4 though).<br>

You could also look at the 28/2.8, 24/2.8 and 35/2. All are fairly resonable in price and are very good from what I have heard. I have a Zuiko 24/2.8 on the way to me as a Christmas present as we speak.<br>

The 85/2, the multicoated versions at least, are extremely sharp and it very small. An excellent lens.</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>I think I'll stay with the 50/1.8 MIJ version that I have for the 50's. I'd love to try something like the 55/1.2 but I have to pay rent and feed myself as well. The 24/2.8 looks appealing and I have been thinking the 100/2.8 or the 135/2.8 to round it out. I'm sure the 90/2 is gorgeous but they are above my pay grade. I can get more bang for the buck elsewhere.</p>

<p>That being said, the 85/2 can be gotten pretty reasonably from KEH (I always look at their "bargain" lenses because of advice I learned on THIS board).</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>My only advice is that if you get a Zuiko 85/2 through KEH or else where make sure the serial number is 116,000 or over. The ones before this were single coated and the old optical design. It might be a fine lens if it was single coated, but just about anyone I have ever heard claim the Zuiko 85/2 was a nice, but soft portrait lens, owned one of the early single coated models that used the old optical formula. Everyone I have talked to who has confirmed that they own one of the multicoated versions thinks theirs is the bee knees when it comes to how sharp it is (including myself with my late version of the 85/2).<br>

You can give KEH a call and they can put the order in conditional that it is for a serial number over that number (though they can't tell you what is what at the time of the call as they have it all packed in the warehouse).</p>

[jim_baker6]

<p>I think the original 85mm was deliberately soft because it was a portrait lens but then the later version was made sharper. It's a great portrait lens because it provides a pleasing perspective but you are not too far from your subject. Over 40 years, Jane Bown (the photojournalist) only ever used a 50mm and an 85mm lens (and an OM-1n) and took many iconic portraits, all in B&W and all using available light. I visited her recent exhibition in London. The prints were all about 60cm x 40cm (I'm guessing, but they were BIG!). It was the lighting and the expressions of her subjects that made the photos so interesting. I didn't think about sharpness, grain or anything like that at all! She is a real inspiration to us OM devotees!<br>

The 24mm is a superb landscape lens. I can't fault it. </p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>I Googled Jane Brown...all I have to say is WOW. I t brings to mind a thread that is going on (in the Nikon forum I believe) about what is limiting your photography. I think it was originally meant as a discussion about what lenses, bodies, etc. do you feel is limiting your creativity but there have been quite a few people chiming in and saying that equipment is never the limiting factor. It's things like, time, creativity, vision and such. Makes me embarrassed that I asked a gear question in this thread (especially after looking at Jane Brown's website). </p>