How do modern Nikon 50mm lenses compare to Olympus OM 50mm lenses?

[ted_smith]

Hi

My first "proper" SLR was an Olympus OM-10, 50mm 1.8 OM-SYSTEM ZUIKO lens (SN 3071614). Still own it today about 27 years later, and used it briefly in 2011 just to see if it still worked OK. And just dug it out again and it fires fine In fact, I used it as my main camera right up until 2005 when I got a Nikon,F55, then an F80, and then (after a short spell with a D70s) an F5.

I'm curious to know though how the lens quality of that particular lens compares to the more modern Nikon 1.8D 50mm lenses; one of which I bought in early 2012. I realise the build and materials are different (metal vs plastic) but the glass itself - how do they compare? More or less the same, or is one considerably inferior to the other?

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

You would need to enlarge a print or to project a slide across a large cinema screen to find any differences.
And, even then, it will still be very marginal any real differences.
I'm guessing by the serial number your OM is a "Japan" or "Made in Japan" version and therefore multi-coated.
Even an early single coated "silver nose" Zuiko will be very marginal any differences.
After all they are all the same Double Gauss design.

 

[Sean Mac]

Hi,

I have some beautiful shots taken with a OM 50 from my first OM10.

Pictures people had framed and are on their walls fifteen years later.

For 50mm lenses made since 1970 the differences only matter to hairsplitters and pixel peepers.

The cheapest new camera at one point was the Centon K100. I bought one to deflect/explore a remark made by a very cute photography student regarding the FM2n I was using. A knock off pentax F1.7 lens and £70 new. A Jessops starter job. I will post a shot I took with it of a guy who put the picture in pride of place on his mantelpiece. When the cute girls camera was stolen I pulled the film out of mine and handed it to her.

For "modern" 50mm lenses the subject is far more important than the glass.

In my experience, of course.

 

[BradleyK]

snip...

For 50mm lenses made since 1970 the differences only matter to hairsplitters and pixel peepers.

...snip

+1

 

[John Bragg]

I am very fond of the results from all my Nikon lenses, in particular the 50mm af 1.8D. It is a stunning performer and to my eyes the equal of the 50mm Zuicko f1.8. I also own a 50mm f1.4 ais manual focus lens and that is equally amazing. I guess there are no bad lenses in this category and it really is down to personal preferences with regard to rendering.

 

[ColColt]

Yep, what John said. I haven't run across any bad 50mm lens. I have two for the Leica M2, one a Summicron DR f2 and a Zeiss 50 f2 Planar of new manufacture. It's a toss up between the two.

 

[BradleyK]

Same here: I've got both a Summicron and a Summilux ASPH for my Leicas and 50mm 1.2 Ais and 1.4 Ais for my Nikons and I cannot, when shooting black and white, tell the results apart.

 

[gone]

I suspect there is very little to choose from with any manufacturer of 50mm SLR lenses in terms of sharpness. The real differences are in build quality and bokeh. Most Nikon lenses do not have good bokeh, excepting the HC 50 2 lens, which I consider to be one of their best lenses.

 

[ic-racer]

The major advances in 35mm lens technology since the 1970 were mostly in zoom development. A top-end Nikkor zoom, at 50mm setting should match the Zuiko.

 

[wiltw]

This information originally Popular Photography Zuiko Lens Tests, compiled Sun Apr 5 22:45:40 EDT 1998 versio.
50/1.8 MC (5/91 p. 47): (no information included!)


This information extracted from a post by Gary Reese (pcacala@earthlink.net) Midwest Biosurveys, Las Vegas, NV USA
Updated: April 22, 2002. Do not know the original data source.

50mm f/1.8 Zuiko (single-coated) OM-1 with mirror lockup

Vignetting = B
Distortion = slight barrel
Aperture Center Corner
f/1.8 D+ Bf/
2.8 C+ Bf/
4 B B
f/5.6 B B
f/8 B B+
f/11 B+ Af/
16 B+ ANotes:
Slightly soft contrast.​

50mm f/1.8 Zuiko (single-coated) OM-4T with mirror and aperture prefire

Vignetting = B @ f/1.8, A @ f/2.8 and thereafter
Distortion = slight barrel
Aperture Center Corner
f/1.8 B Bf/
2.8 B+ B
f/4 B+ B+
f/5.6 B B+
f/8 A- Af/
11 B+ B+
f/16 B B
Notes: Moderate contrast at all apertures.​

50mm f/1.8 Zuiko (multi-coated, earlier MC variant) OM-2000 with mirror and aperture prefire

Vignetting = C+ at f/1.8
Distortion = none
Aperture Center Corner
f/1.8 C C
f/2.8 B- C+
f/4 A- Af/
5.6 A+ Af/
8 A+ A
f/11 A- Af/
16 B+ B
Notes: Extremely high contrast at f/5.6 to f/8, high contrast at f/4 and
f/11, moderately high contrast at f/2 to f/2.8 and at f/16.​

50mm f/1.8 Zuiko (multi-coated, late "Made in Japan" variant) OM-1 with mirror lockup

Vignetting = B
Distortion = moderate barrel
Aperture Center Corner
Page 20 of 77
http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default_m.htm 1/30/2008
f/1.8 C- C
f/2.8 B- B
f/4 B B+
f/5.6 A- A
f/8 A- A
f/11 A+ A
f/16 A A
Notes: Moderately high contrast and extremely high resolution.​

OM-2S with mirror and auto diaphragm prefire, serial number 3694244,
paired comparison with sample below to examine potential production
variation; identical coating

Vignetting = C- @ f/1.8, A- @ f/2.8, A thereafter
Distortion = slight barrel
Aperture Center Corner
f/1.8 B C
f/2.8 A- B+
f/4 A+ A
f/5.6 A Af/
8 A Af/
11 A- B+
f/16 B+ B
Notes: High contrast at f/1.8 to f/2.8 and f/11 to f/16, very high
contrast at f/4 to f/8.​

OM-2S with mirror and auto diaphragm prefire, serial number 5235157,
paired comparison with sample above to examine potential production
variation; identical coating

Vignetting = C @ f/1.8, A- @ f/2.8, A thereafter
Distortion = slight barrel
Aperture Center Corner
f/1.8* B Cf/
1.8 B+ C
f/2.8 A Bf/
4 A+ Af/
5.6 A Af/
8 A Af/
11 A- B+
f/16 A- B+
Notes: Moderately high contrast at f/2.8 and f/8 to f/16, high contrast
at f/1.8, very high contrast at f/4 to f/5.6. * = with an Olympus 1A
filter that "passed" a vertical autocollimator test; lens was
refocused after attaching the filter; no detectable contrast
difference with and without filter.​

I must caution that unless test conditions are identical (testing organization, methods) it is difficult to directly compare on the basis of the subjective letter grades that Popular Photography or Modern Photography used to publish. MTF is much more objective in nature, be still subject to the variances of the test conditions and equipment,.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I wish my eyes were as good as they were in the1960s;I know my lenses are.

 

[jjphoto]

Coating technology is better today than it was back in the 80's. I suspect the Nikkor is better in this respect.

Sharpness of respectable 50mm lenses is pretty much in the same ball park (regarding 80's lenses vs modern). I wouldn't be surprised if the Zuiko was a little sharper when stopped down.

Bokeh is as variable to day as ever. Some modern lenses have poor bokeh, some great, depends on the decisions taken in lens design and not the brand or era a lens was designed in. Each model of lens is different and that's often the reason we (as photographers) have several lenses to choose from, because they draw differently.

 

[John_A]

Isnt the Canon fd 50mm 1.2L asph. atleast the most technically advanced 50mm lens of that time with its floating elements? If that means its better than the competition, I dont know, but I remember both 50 & 85 1.2L beeing very, very good.

Skickat från min D6503 via Tapatalk

 

[Sean Mac]

I wish my eyes were as good as they were in the1960s;I know my lenses are.

 

[darinwc]

I have both the zuiko f1.8 and the Nikkor f1.8 ais.. They are both outstanding. The Nikkor af-d is supposed to be a bit better than the ais according to Nikon published mtf graphs. And it has the Nikon integrated coating. So I would lean toward the Nikkor. But I have no direct experience with it.