skip_williams

<p>The Panasonic lens is for micro-four-thirds, which can place the rear of the lens much closer to the sensor, and reduce the amount of retrofocus lens design necessary to clear the swinging mirror. It's much cheaper to build that a normal 4/3 lens. It's also not weather sealed.<br>

Also, the 7-14/4 is one of the best ultra-super wide angle lenses in the business, That lens, along with the 50-200 SWD are what keep me in the E-System. It's sharp, sharp, sharp, with only modest distortion, low vignetting, and it's a pro-grade, weather-resistant lens.<br>

Skip</p>

<p>I have an E520 currently in transit from Spencer's Camera in Utah that has been fitted with a 820nm IR filter. I'll let you know how it works and performs after I get it this week.<br>

Skip</p>

<p>I assume that this is a real Jupiter-12 Biogon copy with the big rear element sticking out of the back of the lens? If so, you probably know that it wouldn't even fit into a 42mm SLR screw-mount, as the rear element would strike the quick-return mirror.<br>

I agree with the other poster that there has GOT to be some sort of 39mm-to-42mm adapter on the lens or someone has hacked off the old threads and put on new ones. I've never heard of a 42mm rangefinder mount size.<br>

Skip</p>

<p>I had a MC 24/2.8 for at least 20 years and it was a stellar performer. Very nice, all the way to f/2.8. Of course, better stopped down, but very usable wide open. My 24/2.0 is a little better with it's extra stop and super bright finder, but not enough to justify the cost if that's an issue. Use the hoods, they make a big difference, even more with a SC lens. Some 24/2.0 lenses have been reported to have waveform distortion; I've never seen it, but it's been talked about since the 80's.<br>

The f/2.8 is not the "best 24mm lens made", but it's hard to beat for the price. Highly recommended I also agree that the 24/2.8 is much better than the 28/2.8, which was pretty pedestrian. The 28/3.5 is OK, but nothing to write home about. As the number one lens made behind the 50/1.8, it's superbly plentiful and dirt cheap. You could get one of those for $30?<br>

<br /> Regarding SC/MC: For the 24/2.8, if it says "MC", it's multi-coated. If it's got a silver front trim ring, it's almost certainly SC. In between, "maybe". Look at the color of the reflections in the coatings. If they're magenta and/or green, it's MC. If they're yellow, it's SC.<br /> Skip</p>

<p>Many of the Pen primes have bumped up a little with the introduction of the G1, but the zooms are still pretty much collectors items, who want mint stuff. Performance is what you'd expect from 1960's zooms: medicore. The primes are much better. I'd be surprised if you get $50 for the 50-90; there's just very little demand for them. The 100-200 is worth more, maybe $125-175? Unless they're mint with the boxes and cases, you won't get the top dollar you've quoted. The 38/1.8 is the most common lens of the whole Pen series, so they're very plentiful. $50-75?<br>

Also, check them for oil on the blades or fungus, both of which will reduce value.<br>

Skip</p>

<p>I've had a SC 135/2.8 since the mid 70's and it's one of my favorite Zuiko lenses. I had a f/3.5 version for a while, but IMO the only real reason to own the slower lens is for the 49mm filters, whereas the f/2.8 uses 55mm. My f/2.8 is sharper, especially wide open, brighter, and produced better bokeh. <br>

A winner.<br>

Skip</p>

There's no way to get consistent meter readings off a 1-5 screen in the OM-1. You'll need to take hand meter readings to be sure.

From Olympus materials: "Meter readings with this screen on the OM-2Sp, OM-3(Ti) and OM-4(Ti) are correct. Auto "OTF" exposure with the OM-2(n) will be correct even with incorrect meter readings."

Yes, you can theoretically change the screen, but only if you're a technician, as is inferred in your posting. In general, I agree with John. OM10's are really far past their useful life, you're lucky that they work at all. They were consumer-grade bodies. It'd cost you more than the bodies are worth to find and have the screen changed. Enjoy them as they are. If you want a grid screen, buy a single-digit body.

Skip

The difference in FTF distance is 3.5mm, with the OM lenses having longer FTF distances.....so it's possible.

BUT....I've never heard of such an adapter. I guess you could have one made by taking an OM body flange (or cheap teleconverter part) and a Minolta lens flange and cobble the two together with shims, sealant, and tapping screws. It's certainly possible.

To Patrick's point, I'm not sure whether you will be able to use M42 as an intermediary. You'll only have 3.5mm to work with to squeeze in two adapters.

Just realize that there's almost 0% chance that you'll retain any sort of auto-diaphragm operation. The lenses would have to be used in stop-down operation.

The difference in FTF distance is 3.5mm, with the OM lenses having longer FTF distances.....so it's possible.

BUT....I've never heard of such an adapter. I guess you could have one made by taking an OM body flange (or cheap teleconverter part) and a Minolta lens flange and cobble the two together with shims, sealant, and tapping screws. It's certainly possible.

To Patrick's point, I'm not sure whether you will be able to use M42 as an intermediary. You'll only have 3.5mm to work with to squeeze in two adapters. 2mm for the M42-to-MC and 1.5mm for the OM-to-M42. Those are the distances you'd have to match.

Just realize that there's almost 0% chance that you'll retain any sort of auto-diaphragm operation. The lenses would have to be used in stop-down operation.

I use the 50-200 (non-SWD)/ 1.4x combo all the time for soccer and other sports. The IQ is very good. However, I do find that at 200mm, I have far more shots that are not in focus than shorter FL by ~50mm. I've never been able to pin down why. I also find that at longer focal lengths, the bokeh isn't very pretty for many subjects. This problem also seems do rapidly diminish at shorter FL's.

Skip

Patrick,

Why is the deep mount a barrier to fast lenses? I don't understand? Leica's been able to do it with a 25/1.4 for a normal lens. Why couldn't a similar lens be designed as a 17/2.0 or some other moderate, fast WA?

Skip

As others say: "It's not going to happen". Film-to-Flange distance is too far without in-adapter optics. Cheaper to buy OM Zuikos or M42 lenses than Pen F's anyway.

Skip

The widest rectilinear lens you can get for an OM body is the Tamron 17mm f/3.5 . It's a very good lens, and quite findable with the Adaptall mount. It uses a super-big 82mm hood that you should make sure comes with the lens. The Zuiko 18mm is better, but far more expensive and rarer.

12mm lenses for 35mm were only made for the Nikon F or Leica LTM cameras by Cosina/Voigtlander. That's the widest ever for 35mm, AFAIK. The 15/4.5 Voigtlander is also a nice lens.

Sigma made 8mm and 16mm fisheyes for Olympus, but they aren't as good as the Zuiko products. The svelte Zuiko 16/3.5 is a marvel of compactness, sharpness, and high contrast, IME. The 8/2.8 is also great, but now very pricey and rare. The Russian and Chinese 16mm or 8mm lenses won't be quite as good as the Japanese examples, IME.

Kevin,

HSI isn't available anymore. It was discontinued as of 2007. Anything for sale is from existing stocks. There's no direct substitute, but the Efke IR820 does have extended IR sensitivity.

Skip

Did you process the HSI film yourself? It's very sensitive to processing agitation. Most commercial labs would probably screw it up.

Also, It actually doesn't look like the typical regular pattern seen with dimpled pressure plates, IIRR. If it was fogged, I'd expect to see problems only on the first few frames.

The images are very nice, in any case.

Skip

They don't exist, in general. If you assume that a wide angle starts at 28mm (35mm equiv), then you'd need a 17.5mm lens. You can buy a Tamron 17/3.5 for around $100-150, but that's definitely NOT a small lens, with it's huge 82mm filter size (IIRR). None of the OM lenses really qualify and the 18/3.5, while a great lens, is expensive and hard to find.

You'd be better off waiting for the 9-18.

Skip

The 11-22 is sharper and has less distortion, in addition to it's constant aperture. But it's also a very different lens. The 12-60 is far more versatile.

Skip

The 18/3.5 was a VERY thinly sold lens. IMO It was so expensive and so wide that few people could justify the extra cost over the superb 21/3.5. Yea, I know that it's significantly wider, but I still think that few people really bought them. That's one of the few Zuiko lenses that I've never held.

If John can do a front element swap, I'd send it there to get it done. You can keep the old one as a paperweight.

Did you have the 49-72 "hood" on the lens? If not, you might consider buying an aftermarket hood that fits a larger lens?

Skip

Skip

There are many photographers who use/d 300/2.8 lenses for portraits for film cameras. The lovely bokeh of the OOF background and flattening of perspective usually makes most people look very good. The 150/2 is really the same type of lens and would be useful for the same sort of shots, although it will provide a little less perspective flattening. My experience with the lens says that it'd be superb. You will have some issues with camera-to-subject distance, which will mean you will be disconnected from your subject a bit.

A more "traditional" route might be the 50/2 Zuiko-Digital Macro, which is a super-sharp lens and every bit the equivalent lens to the superlative 100'ish macros of the film-era like the 90/2 Zuiko, 105 Micro Nikkor, 100/2 Makro-Planar, or 100/2.8 Apo-Macro Elmarit-R

Skip

I'll reinforce the others. My rule is: Format all cards when they go into the camera. It only takes a few seconds. Never format them on a computer, there's no value to doing that.

Skip

Does the lens's auto-diaphragm mechanism work OK without the adapter? If you put the lens at f/16, then move the aperture lever on the back of the lens, does it stop the lens diaphragm down and then snap back into wide-open position?

Mount the adapter on the lens off the body. It should move the aperture lever so that when you turn the aperture ring, the lens stops down and opens up, bypassing the auto-diaphragm mechanism.

Skip

The "funny" thing is this is actually not even the big one. There were three of them: Incident Illuminator Mirror Housings PM-EL 80, PM-EL 38 & PM-EL 20. They were designed to mount directly onto the 80mm, 38mm, and 20mm bellows lenses and provide direct illumination of a subject as Tommy describes. The one in the auction is for the 38mm lens.

I'm not sure if it's really worth $866, but it's certainly a rare piece.

Skip