Manual focus glasses - Nikon or Olympus?

[M-88]

Hello

I'm sure there are lots of people on here with much more experience than I have in such matter, so I'm hoping for some good input.

The matter is, when I tried to find a suitable system for me, I tried various brands and various models of cameras. And I happened to completely ignore Canon and Nikon brands. How crazy is that, right? I probably did it due to their price. Finally settled for Olympus OM system, but now my eye seems to slip towards Nikon every now and then, so here comes the question itself:

Let's disregard the bodies, let's say, I can cope with Nikon FM instead of Olympus OM-1, or Nikon FE instead of OM-2. Let's discuss the optics. Is ordinary Nikon glass substantially better than Olympus? By ordinary I mean something like 50 mm f/1.8, 50 mm f/1.4, 28 mm f/2.8 and such, nothing macro, nothing ultra-fast and so on. I won't be counting lines per mm, biggest print I ever make is 20x30 cm (8x10).

I want to figure out if Nikon is really that good, or is it 50/50 of over-the-top performance and over-the-top marketing, because I'm trying to convince myself that what I own is good, but sometimes I just can't help to think about what I'm missing out.

Thank you

 

[Mick Fagan]

Is ordinary Nikon glass substantially better than Olympus? By ordinary I mean something like 50 mm f/1.8, 50 mm f/1.4, 28 mm f/2.8 and such, nothing macro, nothing ultra-fast and so on. I won't be counting lines per mm, biggest print I ever make is 20x30 cm (8x10).

I want to figure out if Nikon is really that good, or is it 50/50 of over-the-top performance and over-the-top marketing, because I'm trying to convince myself that what I own is good, but sometimes I just can't help to think about what I'm missing out.

Thank you

In a nutshell, no.

Nikkor lenses are generally good, as are Olympus. Both manufacturers have high standards, both have outstanding lenses, very good lenses and good lenses. Their second tier lenses are both reasonably priced but have corners cut somewhere, usually in the lens body material and putting plastic here and there; compared to the top stuff.

I ran Olympus bodies, OM1 MD from just after they were released in the seventies. I changed to Nikon solely due to the availability of second hand Nikkor lenses from professional photographers. There are literally millions of Nikkor lenses out there, whereas by comparison, there are a lot less second hand Olympus lenses.

If you have Olympus gear, then you are missing nothing.

Mick.

 

[darinwc]

One big difference is the telephoto lenses. Nikon had their ED line including 180 f2.8 , 300mm f4, 70-200 f2.8 and various longer lenses. These are way better than the Olympus lenses. And Nikon had a135mm f2 DC. Nothing in Olympus like that.

Olympus does have the 90mm f2 macros and the 100mm f2 (Ed). They also have a 180mm f2 but that is extremely rare and expensive.

So if you need a telephoto, I would say go Nikon. Otherwise they are pretty similar.

 

[shutterfinger]

Nikkor lens are some of the best in the world along with Zeiss, Schneider, Rodenstok, Canon, Zuiko, Pentax, Minolta and basically any brand camera manufacturer's lens.
Zeiss made lens for several brand cameras. Each has its own look but you'll likely need instruments to determine the difference between them.
I'm partial to Zeiss and Nikon's Nikor.
Vivitar, Soligor, Tokina, are 3rd party lens of which some are top line performers.
Olympus was aimed at advanced armature and armature level photographers with pro level lens performance.
Scratches will do more to degrade the image quality in used lens that the pedigree.

 

[darinwc]

The 50mm f1.8 from Nikon and Olympus are both some of the best lenses made for an slr. They are equals imho. The 50mm f1.4 lenses were made in various designs. The best of which are both excellent.

Nikon does have more exotic stuff around but if you are looking for a good solid kit with excellent lenses you cannot go work with either.

 

[M-88]

If you have Olympus gear, then you are missing nothing.

Mick.

Thank you. I should repeat this to myself more often.

 

[M-88]

The 50mm f1.8 from Nikon and Olympus are both some of the best lenses made for an slr. They are equals imho. The 50mm f1.4 lenses were made in various designs. The best of which are both excellent.

Nikon does have more exotic stuff around but if you are looking for a good solid kit with excellent lenses you cannot go work with either.

Nothing exotic, to be more descriptive, right now I have 50 mm f/1.8 "MIJ" lens, 28 mm f/3.5 lens and 135 mm f/2.8. I used to have 50 mm f/1.4, but it was silvernose so I sold it. Besides, it's a bit larger and heavier than 50 mm f/1.8. I feel satisfied with those three lenses. Sure, I might go for 24 mm f/2.8 if I get a chance, but noting fancy like 85 mm f/2, 18 mm f/3.5, tilt lenses or something. I'm an amateur clicking for my own pleasure...

One big difference is the telephoto lenses. Nikon had their ED line including 180 f2.8 , 300mm f4, 70-200 f2.8 and various longer lenses. These are way better than the Olympus lenses. And Nikon had a135mm f2 DC. Nothing in Olympus like that.

Olympus does have the 90mm f2 macros and the 100mm f2 (Ed). They also have a 180mm f2 but that is extremely rare and expensive.

So if you need a telephoto, I would say go Nikon. Otherwise they are pretty similar.

...And carrying telephoto gear is inconvenient so I'm not going anywhere further than 135 mm, but thank you for the input. I remember 180 mm f/2.8 went for 350$, I can only speculate how much one would have to pay for f/2 version of that lens.

 

[jjphoto]

...

Let's discuss the optics. Is ordinary Nikon glass substantially better than Olympus? By ordinary I mean something like 50 mm f/1.8, 50 mm f/1.4, 28 mm f/2.8 and such, nothing macro, nothing ultra-fast and so on. I won't be counting lines per mm, biggest print I ever make is 20x30 cm (8x10).

...

No, one is NOT better than another, they are just different.The lenses don't perform the same, they have a slightly different look to their images, but it's not a matter of one being better (maybe better built, more robust in the case of Nikon gear).

...

I want to figure out if Nikon is really that good, or is it 50/50 of over-the-top performance and over-the-top marketing, because I'm trying to convince myself that what I own is good, but sometimes I just can't help to think about what I'm missing out.

Thank you

Nikons success in the photographic world has less to do with marketing and much more to do with offering a complete 'system' which enables almost any kind of photographic task to be fulfilled along with extensive repair centres worldwide to support professionals. Nikon always made extremely durable equipment designed to cope with professional needs, so professionals were drawn to them. Olympus gear is beautiful, great lenses and cameras, but nowhere near the durability of Nikon or Canon gear of the times.

 

[M-88]

No, one is NOT better than another, they are just different.The lenses don't perform the same, they have a slightly different look to their images, but it's not a matter of one being better (maybe better built, more robust in the case of Nikon gear).

Nikons success in the photographic world has less to do with marketing and much more to do with offering a complete 'system' which enables almost any kind of photographic task to be fulfilled along with extensive repair centres worldwide to support professionals. Nikon always made extremely durable equipment designed to cope with professional needs, so professionals were drawn to them. Olympus gear is beautiful, great lenses and cameras, but nowhere near the durability of Nikon or Canon gear of the times.

Surely the images will look different, but it's a matter of personal taste. As for the build quality, black paint isn't exactly durable on Olympus bodies and lenses, sadly. It leaves me to wish for something better. Not Canon, however. And not Pentax. Certainly not Minolta. One solution for that is to have chrome bodies instead of black, which I do in case of OM-1 and OM-2, but OM-4 is unavailable in chrome and titanium finish is just cataclysmic.

 

[jjphoto]

I forgot to mention, the biggest and imho most important difference between the two is that they focus in different directions. For me, this is a huge problem because once you get used to one direction it's difficult to change. I went from Olympus to Nikon then back to Canon/contax/leica which focus the same direction as Olympus. This matters most with moving subjects.

 

[M-88]

I forgot to mention, the biggest and imho most important difference between the two is that they focus in different directions. For me, this is a huge problem because once you get used to one direction it's difficult to change. I went from Olympus to Nikon then back to Canon/contax/leica which focus the same direction as Olympus. This matters most with moving subjects.

I know what you mean, most of my previous cameras were focusing to infinity by rotating counter-clockwise (when looking through the VF) so there was no issue with Olympus, but when I acquired Pentax ME, everything was inverted. Heck, it even needed the batteries inserted the other way around. I never got used to it and it found a new owner.

 

[guangong]

There is no objective “better”. What feels best in YOUR hands is the best choice. I have owned an Olympus Pen 4/3s digital camera because it suits me for the few time I use digital capture and I like its small size, but for 35mm SLR I prefer Leicaflex and Nikon F. These suit me but may not necessarily suit you. Keep in mind that the initial cost of cameras when sold new in large part reflected the quality of the materials used in manufacture but current selling price often doesn’t reflect quality or original selling price.
As with any tool, a camera should be a pleasure to use, and that is a subjective decision.

 

[M-88]

There is no objective “better”. What feels best in YOUR hands is the best choice. I have owned an Olympus Pen 4/3s digital camera because it suits me for the few time I use digital capture and I like its small size, but for 35mm SLR I prefer Leicaflex and Nikon F. These suit me but may not necessarily suit you. Keep in mind that the initial cost of cameras when sold new in large part reflected the quality of the materials used in manufacture but current selling price often doesn’t reflect quality or original selling price.
As with any tool, a camera should be a pleasure to use, and that is a subjective decision.

Let me put it this way: when I had a 4/3 camera I was having hard times getting adequate image in low light, anything over 400 ISO was horrendous. Then I switched to APS-C and images are sharp and crisp even at 800 ISO. I wonder if there's similar substantial performance increase between the brands. Like seeing the world without the eyeglasses vs with eyeglasses kind of increase. So far I was unable to see that difference myself and people here are saying the same as well, mostly.

I don't mind the selling price, my OM gear stays with me until it dies (or until I die, doesn't really matter) just like most of my other film gear which I'm comfortable to work with. I also don't mind the buying price as long as it is within logical limits.

 

[bdial]

It depend on what you consider substantial. You are unlikely the see the sort of difference you're comparing to with different digital format platforms and ISO performance.

The differences between top grade lenses are down to small nuances and how those map to your personal taste. Perhaps the easiest way to satisfy your curiosity is to go buy a Nikon body for 10 or 20 bucks, pair it with some lens you might like and compare the results.

 

[M-88]

It depend on what you consider substantial. You are unlikely the see the sort of difference you're comparing to with different digital format platforms and ISO performance.

The differences between top grade lenses are down to small nuances and how those map to your personal taste. Perhaps the easiest way to satisfy your curiosity is to go buy a Nikon body for 10 or 20 bucks, pair it with some lens you might like and compare the results.

"Substantial": big enough to be visible on side-by-side 8x11 prints and I get it, the answer is a huge "NO", collectively said by the whole APUG to me

 

[nsurit]

I've owned both and my bet is that if you compared prints from Nikon and Olympus cameras with the same focal length lens you would not be able to tell the difference. So, for me, it would boil down to which was the most comfortable to use. As I celebrate more birthdays my answer is going to fall toward the lighter OM line. As an aside, let me say that I either own or have owned most of the OM Zuiko lenses (other than the Big Whites) several of which I've traded out for the Tamron SP line, these include the 180mmm f2.5, 300mm f2.8 and the 400mm f4. Another Tamron SP which resides in my stable is the 90mm f2.5 although I also have the Zuiko 90mm f2. There are times when I might rather have the less expensive lens banging around in my kit. These Adaptall 2 lens can be used with either the Olympus or Nikon bodies and are worth a look.

 

[M-88]

I've owned both and my bet is that if you compared prints from Nikon and Olympus cameras with the same focal length lens you would not be able to tell the difference.

Thought so, but wanted to make sure it indeed is like that.

So, for me, it would boil down to which was the most comfortable to use. As I celebrate more birthdays my answer is going to fall toward the lighter OM line..

May you live a long and interesting life! There are two reasons why I feel comfortable with OM. One of them is light weight - any trip is much more pleasant when I'm not carrying around too much weight, other reason - shutter speed selector around the lens, which allows me to operate my camera without removing it from my eye. In fact those two were the reasons why I chose OM-1 to be my go-to camera back in 2012.

As an aside, let me say that I either own or have owned most of the OM Zuiko lenses (other than the Big Whites)

Lucky you! Some people are just living the dream!

several of which I've traded out for the Tamron SP line, these include the 180mmm f2.5, 300mm f2.8 and the 400mm f4. Another Tamron SP which resides in my stable is the 90mm f2.5 although I also have the Zuiko 90mm f2. There are times when I might rather have the less expensive lens banging around in my kit. These Adaptall 2 lens can be used with either the Olympus or Nikon bodies and are worth a look.

Thank you. I've checked and these lenses cost almost ten times less than Zuiko. Might give it a try since 135 mm is sometimes uncomfortable for portraits.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hello

I'm sure there are lots of people on here with much more experience than I have in such matter, so I'm hoping for some good input.

The matter is, when I tried to find a suitable system for me, I tried various brands and various models of cameras. And I happened to completely ignore Canon and Nikon brands. How crazy is that, right? I probably did it due to their price. Finally settled for Olympus OM system, but now my eye seems to slip towards Nikon every now and then, so here comes the question itself:

Let's disregard the bodies, let's say, I can cope with Nikon FM instead of Olympus OM-1, or Nikon FE instead of OM-2. Let's discuss the optics. Is ordinary Nikon glass substantially better than Olympus? By ordinary I mean something like 50 mm f/1.8, 50 mm f/1.4, 28 mm f/2.8 and such, nothing macro, nothing ultra-fast and so on. I won't be counting lines per mm, biggest print I ever make is 20x30 cm (8x10).

I want to figure out if Nikon is really that good, or is it 50/50 of over-the-top performance and over-the-top marketing, because I'm trying to convince myself that what I own is good, but sometimes I just can't help to think about what I'm missing out.

Thank you

tough question; both, Nikon and Olympus, make great lenses. I would go for used older Nikon glass pre (AIor AIS) glass to save $;usually sells for what you paid for it. But it is not worth a system switch in my opinion. If you are already invested in Olympus glass, stay there.

 

[M-88]

tough question; both, Nikon and Olympus, make great lenses. I would go for used older Nikon glass pre (AIor AIS) glass to save $;usually sells for what you paid for it. But it is not worth a system switch in my opinion. If you are already invested in Olympus glass, stay there.

I've heard FM can handle non-AI optics thanks to some magic switch and it's relatively cheap.

 

[Ste_S]

Let me put it this way: when I had a 4/3 camera I was having hard times getting adequate image in low light, anything over 400 ISO was horrendous. Then I switched to APS-C and images are sharp and crisp even at 800 ISO.

*Shrugs* I still shoot with an Olympus m4/3 12MP camera and have zero issues with IQ at 1600ISO and A4 print size.

Back on 'analogue' topic - if there was a difference between Olympus and Nikon glass you're not going to notice it at the size you're printing. Heck, I'm perfectly happy with A4 size prints from an Olympus Trip 35.

 

[flavio81]

Hello

I'm sure there are lots of people on here with much more experience than I have in such matter, so I'm hoping for some good input.

The matter is, when I tried to find a suitable system for me, I tried various brands and various models of cameras. And I happened to completely ignore Canon and Nikon brands. How crazy is that, right? I probably did it due to their price. Finally settled for Olympus OM system, but now my eye seems to slip towards Nikon every now and then, so here comes the question itself:

Let's disregard the bodies, let's say, I can cope with Nikon FM instead of Olympus OM-1, or Nikon FE instead of OM-2. Let's discuss the optics. Is ordinary Nikon glass substantially better than Olympus? By ordinary I mean something like 50 mm f/1.8, 50 mm f/1.4, 28 mm f/2.8 and such, nothing macro, nothing ultra-fast and so on. I won't be counting lines per mm, biggest print I ever make is 20x30 cm (8x10).

I want to figure out if Nikon is really that good, or is it 50/50 of over-the-top performance and over-the-top marketing, because I'm trying to convince myself that what I own is good, but sometimes I just can't help to think about what I'm missing out.

Thank you

The major difference will be in the cameras, not the lenses. A Nikkormat or Nikon F/F2/F3 will be far more rugged than an OM-1/2. Even a Nikon FM2/FE2, which are really good cameras.

On the lenses, ordinary lenses are Ok in any good brand, however Nikon (and Canon) have more variety.

If you like the small form factor of the OM cameras, consider the Pentax MX, which is even smaller, and in my opinion better built, more rugged, more ergonomic, and with a wider variety of lenses available. Also, Pentax lenses (in particular the original K series) are some of the best built lenses ever.

 

[flavio81]

To add to the above comment -- i own complete Canon FD and Nikon systems, i.e. Canon F-1 cameras, Nikon F2 cameras, Nikkormats, lots of lenses, also many Pentax K and M42 camreas; and the MX is pretty remarkable. I've also used OM-2 for an assignment in the past.

 

[benjiboy]

Both brands are better lenses than you and I are photographers.

 

[Chan Tran]

Both brands are better lenses than you and I are photographers.

Really how can you determine if a lens or camera is better than the photographer?

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I have used both Nikon and Olympus, got more than 12 Nikon lenses and about 5 Nikon bodies (F, F2, FM, F4, FE2) and about 15 Zuiko with about 5 Olympus bodies (2 OM1,OM2, OM4 and OM4T).

Both are great lenses and, to be fair, I cant distinguish pictures took with one or the other.

That said, I use the Olympus more that the Nikon because Olympus offer (on my eyes) the same quality but on smaller package. I specially like the 35 3.5 and the 100 f/2.8, but they are all small in package.

Also, I really like how these lens look on my Canon 6d

Regards

Marcelo