30 years to get back to where I started. The Olympus OM1n and I.

flavio81 · May 2, 2016

Les Sarile said:
I am certain if you have actual irrefutable proof of your assertion that this would just be facts instead of something inflammatory.

If i was an optical engineer i could demonstrate or explain how constraining the length and width of the optical system has this specific impact on abberration correction.

I'm not, so i present a case for such an argument, but based only on my experience.

No need to be inflammatory really, for i've liked Olympus cameras in general, the OM-1, OM-2, Olympus Pen S, Pen EES-2 and Olympus Trip, in specific. I just never could warm to the lenses.

Les Sarile · May 2, 2016

flavio81 said:
If i was an optical engineer i could demonstrate or explain how constraining the length and width of the optical system has this specific impact on abberration correction.

I'm not, so i present a case for such an argument, but based only on my experience.

Actually, you have not presented a case at all. Rather, you have presented supposition that a smaller form factor lens must have sacrificed some quality for it. Incidentally, you don't need to be an optical engineer to make a case because if you can only tell the difference in theory - and not in actual results, then it is hardly an argument either.

Theo Sulphate · May 2, 2016

flavio81 said:
... whenever I use a 135 i want to have very "3d-like", smooth out of focus effects. For what's it's worth, my current champion for it is the Super-Canomatic R 135/2.5 lens (circa 1959-61), fantastic.
...

When it comes to producing good bokeh, the 135/2 DC AF-D is one of the best because you can use the forward control ring to change the bokeh while keeping the subject sharp:

That said, some backgrounds are going to be distracting even with great bokeh lenses. The statue photo above is very very good. It's got good sharpness overall, so I assume it was shot maybe at f/5.6 or f/4, so there will be even less softening of the background. Still, it's a good shot.

The only Olympus lens I have is the 50/1.4, but I wouldn't hesitate to get the 135.

It seems most of the Olympus lenses are f/2 or f/2.8 - I'm assuming both types are equally good in the corners.

Gerry M · May 2, 2016

While I am not a big fan of zoom lenses, I had heard a lot of positive about the Zuiko 35-70 f3.6 fixed aperture, 2 touch lens. When one was recently advertised (on another forum), I decided to give it a try. After the first try-out, and even tho the balance leaves much to be desired, I am really glad I did.

CMoore · May 2, 2016

Sorry if I am repeating myself in this thread, but.....I just received an OM-1n that was set straight by John Titterington. The cosmetics are quite good, but the whole feel, and size of this Olympus makes me think that ....."Oh, this is what a (circa 1960) Leica must feel like".
A WHOLE Different feel than what my hands, and then eyes experience from using my Canon A-1 and Nikon F2.
All I have done is screw a lens on and dry fire it a few times. But it has been a real pleasure so far.

Les Sarile · May 2, 2016

CMoore said:
Sorry if I am repeating myself in this thread, but.....I just received an OM-1n that was set straight by John Titterington.

Did he refit and recalibrate to use the newer 1.5v battery?

darinwc · May 2, 2016

flavio81 said:
I'll put my flame suit on and i'll have to put a little rain on the parade:

Here i see a sample of the Zuiko 135 and i'm sure it's a lens even more compact than the equivalent Canon FD and Nikon AI-mount equivalents, but I can't help but feel that I don't think that's a good bokeh for being a 135mm lens, and whenever I use a 135 i want to have very "3d-like", smooth out of focus effects. For what's it's worth, my current champion for it is the Super-Canomatic R 135/2.5 lens (circa 1959-61), fantastic.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I'm not trying to get into a flame war, just trying to clarify. It sounds like you are trying to make a correlation between the size/weight of the lens and the bokkeh?

i think size has less of a factor than the era of design. The (early) canon and nikon lenses were designed much earlier and often copies of german designs. Later, there was more variety of types of glass, more powerful computers to design, and i think more of an emphasis on edge-to-edge sharpness. (guessing, thats the sense i get)

I cannot comment on the bokkeh of the Zuiko 135 f3.5, since I dont have one atm. But the 135 f2.8 has quite pleasing bokkeh. I just brought out mine to review. And it is still amazingly compact. Probably not up to the level of your canon, which has a speed advantage, but I think you would like it if you had one.

CMoore · May 3, 2016

Les Sarile said:
Did he refit and recalibrate to use the newer 1.5v battery?

All I can say is that John said, and I am paraphrasing, "shutter is properly timed and the meter is calibrated". It came with a brand new L1560 battery in it.

darinwc · May 3, 2016

Other notable Zuikos for bokkeh: the 50mm f1.8 i just read a comparison over on RFF between that and the Nikkor 50mm f2, which I did not think was fair, but the Zuiko id say surpassed the Nikkor.
The 50mm f2 macro is just awesome in every way, and has super smooth bokkeh.
The 85mm f2 has a good reputation, but I prefer the 100mm f2.8.

One thing I noticed about Olympus though, they tended to use more single elements and few cemented doublets/triplets. That may lead to less contrast. Perhaps that is what you see in your early canons. Who knows?

darinwc · May 3, 2016

And to John, the op.. That OM1 you have is a gorgeous example. I have no 'returning to film' stories because i never really left. But I havent been using my OM equipment for a while. And your post has got me re-motivated!

John Bragg · May 3, 2016

darinwc said:
And to John, the op.. That OM1 you have is a gorgeous example. I have no 'returning to film' stories because i never really left. But I havent been using my OM equipment for a while. And your post has got me re-motivated!

Thanks, I have had it since new and It is nearly as new. The 135 f3.5 has never impressed me much and I have just bought a Vivitar 135 f2.8 Komine to try instead. It was rediculously cheap and the Nikon version I already own is razor sharp so I have high hopes for this one.

darinwc · May 3, 2016

OK let me know what you think. The Tamron 135 cf is supposed to be very good as well, but it is hard to find.
Also I have the Tamron 90mm f2.5 macro. That's an amazing lens as well.

John Bragg · May 3, 2016

darinwc said:
OK let me know what you think. The Tamron 135 cf is supposed to be very good as well, but it is hard to find.
Also I have the Tamron 90mm f2.5 macro. That's an amazing lens as well.

Thanks, I will look out for those. Some of the independent short telephotos are amazingly good. This is a shot from my identical Nikon fit Komine wide open !

19133F by John Bragg, on Flickr

flavio81 · May 3, 2016

darinwc said:
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I'm not trying to get into a flame war, just trying to clarify. It sounds like you are trying to make a correlation between the size/weight of the lens and the bokkeh?

i think size has less of a factor than the era of design. The (early) canon and nikon lenses were designed much earlier and often copies of german designs. Later, there was more variety of types of glass, more powerful computers to design, and i think more of an emphasis on edge-to-edge sharpness. (guessing, thats the sense i get)

I cannot comment on the bokkeh of the Zuiko 135 f3.5, since I dont have one atm. But the 135 f2.8 has quite pleasing bokkeh. I just brought out mine to review. And it is still amazingly compact. Probably not up to the level of your canon, which has a speed advantage, but I think you would like it if you had one.

Good post and I can see your points. My correlation was not exactly size/weight versus bokeh but size/weight versus aberration correction, "all else being equal". This "all else being equal" (comparison factors) can be decomposed to:

a. Glass materials available
b. Optimization technology (i.e. computer optimization) and extent (i.e. computer time available for optimizing the design)
c. Target price
d. New optical designs

In telephotos compactness is dictated by the telephoto ratio; it is known that reducing the telephoto ratio reduces the length of the system and at the same time increases aberrations, or, put in another way, reduces the engineer's "freedom" to balance them at will. This includes astigmatism and spherical aberration which will influence the 'bokeh'. But it could be another factor that the engineer would choose to make "suffer" -- for example the chromatic aberration, or corner performance, etc etc.

So if I compare a Canon FD 135/3.5 (mid 60s) with a Canon FD 135/3.5 (1979) i can evaluate the "all else being equal" (comparison factors) as follows:

a. Glass materials available: Equal, no ultra-low-dispersion stuff was used in those designs.
b. Optimization technology: Both are simple designs, not zooms; computer optimization was already in place in the mid 60s at all the major japanese lens manufacturers so it's doutful that the late 70s lens would bring any improvement
c. Target price, similar
d. New optical designs: No novel design on the new lens.

So in my view "all else is equal", the difference being the telephoto ratio...

flavio81 · May 3, 2016

Continuing with my previous post, i own about two dozen lenses, and my 35mm lenses are mostly Canon FL/FD, Nikkors, and Canon EF lenses. I have been surprised sometimes to find some compromises made when "shrinking down" the lenses. For example I have a Canon FL 19/3.5R lens, this is a 1965 (!) design that is rather big, and a Nikon AI 20/4.0 lens, a mid 1970s design which was a revolutionary "milestone" for Nikon, for being tiny, as big as a 50/1.8 lens. Both are dramatically different in size. The Canon was also a "milestone" lens, being the widest retrofocus SLR lens available for this format on its time.

So well, both were expensive lenses and the Nikon should have better technology available (coming 10 years later) on it's favor, however when I compare both for correction:

center sharpness: great on both
distortion: really low on both

And then the similarities stop...

vignetting: the big lens benefit from a larger element; the Nikon has a marked vignetting
extreme corner performance: generally poor on the Nikon (corners only get good at f11), while on the Canon they are OK even wide open(!)

So when I see that the later lens (Nikon) should have the upper hand, and the conclusion is that the early lens is a better corrected lens overall, i can't help but conclude that downsizing the lens wasn't possible without compromises.

A similar effect i see with my huge, gigantic Canon FL 85-300/5.0 lens (1964!); yes this is a huge lens, but I see generally good performance at all criteria (bokeh, CA, resolution, distortion), and it's surprising to see that a 1964 zoom could be this good, particularly when sometimes I find some smaller, later zooms that are not as good.

But examining the patent for the FL 85-300/5.0 lens shows a totally conservative design, in the sense that no particular measures were made to restrict the lens size. This can be called "let the lens grow to its natural dimensions", as Leica specialist Erwin Puts once put it. (Pun intended)

Les Sarile · May 3, 2016

flavio81 said:
So when I see that the later lens (Nikon) should have the upper hand, and the conclusion is that the early lens is a better corrected lens overall, i can't help but conclude that downsizing the lens wasn't possible without compromises.

A good observation that is limited specifically to your collection and unfortunately it sounds like you have some poor example of lenses.

I recall that Pop and Modern Photography - and others, used to professionally evaluate the cameras and lenses when they were factory new and I don't recall any of the smaller lenses to be subpar compared to their larger equivalents.

Because of your unsupported insistence, you really are now raining on the parade.

thuggins · May 4, 2016

Gerry M said:
While I am not a big fan of zoom lenses, I had heard a lot of positive about the Zuiko 35-70 f3.6 fixed aperture, 2 touch lens. When one was recently advertised (on another forum), I decided to give it a try. After the first try-out, and even tho the balance leaves much to be desired, I am really glad I did.

The 35-70f3.6 has always been a highly regarded lens. Olympus also made a 35-80f2.8 which is considered (perhaps) the finest zoom lens ever made.

As you point out, the drawback of the f3.6 is that it is a huge, heavy lens and although it gets more use than any of my other Zuikos I always have to grit my teeth at how awkward it makes the overall camera. Now that I have some time, I'm going to do a side by side comparison between the 35f2, 35f2.8, 35-70f3.5-4.5, and 35-70f3.6. It's not like I'll get rid of any of them based on the results, but I've always wondered how they stack up side by side.

foc · May 4, 2016

I never used an OM1 or 2 but I shot professionally from mid 1980's till mid 1990's with OM4ti and a selection of Zuiko lenses. The camera saw me through wedding and studio, press and PR and never once let me down. Infact once at a press shoot some of the other photographers (Nikon) tried to slag me by calling me the photographer with the "little camera".

Gerry M · May 4, 2016

For me, the 35-80/2.8 would be on my bucket list. I've compared some negatives from my 24/2.8, 28/2.8 35/2.8, 50/1.4 and 35-70/3.5-4.5. Of these, only the 28/2.8 may have a very slight edge. The others lag a little bit. Maybe it's me?

CMoore · May 4, 2016

I guess those would be some well used lengths.....I assume you enjoyed the versatility of the 35-80.?
I really do not have much experience with a Zoom.....is the 35 pretty much like a 'wide' 35 and the 80 similar to a telephoto of that length as well.?
Thanks

Pioneer · Sep 26, 2016

I don't believe that overall size, at least as presented in the OM mount lenses, would be a factor in the optical quality of the lenses. Leica is an example of a company that has made a virtue of small but excellent optics. Likewise, Pentax with their M and A series glass is at least as small as the lenses produced by Olympus, and I haven't heard any complaints regarding the optical quality of these lenses. As for Canon and Nikon, neither company has made their reputations on building "small" lenses.

I will agree that their probably is some validity in the argument that building larger lenses gives the designers a little more freedom as the size is not an additional constraint, but this certainly doesn't make it impossible to build exceptionally good lenses, even though they may be smaller.

Additionally, "faster" lenses, by their very nature, require larger diameter glass to ensure adequate circumference to accommodate the larger aperture, and the diameter of some lens mounts were a limitation. But since Olympus did produce a 50mm and 55mm lens with an F1.2 aperture I don't believe this was the case.

In reality I believe that Olympus probably has the same ratio of terrific to not-so-terrific lenses as any other company at this time. And by this time you also have to add in the past history of the lens to the equation. If there are a larger number of damaged lenses at this point in history, and I have no information that would confirm this as anything more than bald speculation, then build quality may be an issue. That is a totally separate issue from optical quality, though they will become linked with the passage of time.

benjiboy · Sep 29, 2016

ColColt said:
Now, there's one camera I nearly bought over the Nikon F2, the F-1. I didn't realize it was that much bigger than the Nikon. Still, a great camera. I've never owned a Minolta or Olympus, however.

I have never owned an Olympus or Minolta either but there's a saying in this neck of the woods, "good stuff weighs heavy", and although I know they are exquisite and like jewellery I always felt they were a bit flimsy and although some leading pro's like David Bailey and Patrick Litchfield used Olympus SLR's, when I used to sell cameras to pro's for a living many of them told me they had tried them but they wouldn't stand up to sort of hammer that professional use gave them, that the Nikon F2 and Canon F1 would.

Les Sarile · Sep 29, 2016

benjiboy said:
. . . when I used to sell cameras to pro's for a living many of them told me they had tried them but they wouldn't stand up to sort of hammer that professional use gave them, that the Nikon F2 and Canon F1 would.

Doesn't say much for their professional credentials if they don't know when to use a hammer and when to use a camera. BTW, what was their profession . . .

benjiboy · Sep 30, 2016

Les Sarile said:
Doesn't say much for their professional credentials if they don't know when to use a hammer and when to use a camera. BTW, what was their profession . . .

They were some some of the leading professional commercial photographers in the North of England, not "all the gear and no idea" camera collectors.

Les Sarile · Sep 30, 2016

benjiboy said:
They were some some of the leading professional commercial photographers in the North of England, not "all the gear and no idea" camera collectors.

I am confident you are a better judge of that scene

30 years to get back to where I started. The Olympus OM1n and I.

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency