Manual focus glasses - Nikon or Olympus?

[Dali]

I never complained about my OM lenses but I had my OM1 repaired twice. To me, Olympus cameras are not in the same league as Nikon.

 

[M-88]

I never complained about my OM lenses but I had my OM1 repaired twice. To me, Olympus cameras are not in the same league as Nikon.

I've got plenty of spare parts in the drawer. Use them every now and then.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

There's one thing to note about OM lenses: lenses faster than f/2.8 are harder to find and Olympus made few OM lenses faster than f/2. The 50/1.4 and 1.2 are exceptions.

Nikon, however, has many more focal lengths at f/2 or faster.

This may not matter to you.

Agree about that.

This is mostly due to the path Olympus took with their design (smaller size vs faster lens). Faster lens usually tend to be bigger.

That said, 50 f/1.4 is smaller than my Leica Summilux 50 f/1.4 so I suppose they did a good job.

Regards

Marcelo.

 

[MattKing]

To the op.. my go to portrait lens is the Olympus 100mm f2.8. I prefer it to the 85mm f2, and it costs half as much!

Whereas my 85mm f/2 is definitely in the (pry from my cold dead hands) category for me.
In short, your preference in lenses is likely to be particular to you.

 

[M-88]

My friend and I swapped our cameras for a few days. I gave him my OM-4 and got Minolta X-700 in return. So far, so bad The body feels plasticky, 50 mm f/1.7 lens as well. Celtic 135 mm f/3.5 is a bit more solid, I suspect thanks to an integrated metal hood. What also irritates me is that electronics can't expose longer than 4 seconds, as opposed to two minutes on OM-4. I intend to spend two rolls of film on it, see what it can do. Just out of curiosity.

 

[Chan Tran]

My friend and I swapped our cameras for a few days. I gave him my OM-4 and got Minolta X-700 in return. So far, so bad The body feels plasticky, 50 mm f/1.7 lens as well. Celtic 135 mm f/3.5 is a bit more solid, I suspect thanks to an integrated metal hood. What also irritates me is that electronics can't expose longer than 4 seconds, as opposed to two minutes on OM-4. I intend to spend two rolls of film on it, see what it can do. Just out of curiosity.

Because the OM-4 is much more expensive than the X-700.

 

[M-88]

Because the OM-4 is much more expensive than the X-700.

I paid same for OM-4 as he paid for his X-700, which was 100$. It's a non-TI version with inferior circuit, no titanium and huge battery issues.

I'm half way through with first film and X-700 does well, but doesn't feel good. At least I can expect adequate optical performance, but my friend was right when he decided to put X-700 on sale.

 

[nsurit]

There's one thing to note about OM lenses: lenses faster than f/2.8 are harder to find and Olympus made few OM lenses faster than f/2. The 50/1.4 and 1.2 are exceptions.

Nikon, however, has many more focal lengths at f/2 or faster.

This may not matter to you.

Olympus didn't have a shabby selection of Zuikos at f2, with the 21mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 40mm, 50mm Macro, 85mm, 100mm, 180mm, 250mm, 20mm Macro and although not an f2, the 350mm f2.8 is worth mentioning. Bill Barber

 

[M-88]

In my personal experience, I'm having hard times to fit objects in DOF created by f/1.8 lens. yes, it can be beneficial, but I ended up using 50 mm f/1.8 more often than 50 mm f/1.4, since f/2.8 is as low as I go in most of the cases. If I want extra performance, I prefer to push the film instead. A bit more grain can be tolerated, less sharpness - not so much. I wouldn't call "lack" of fast lenses in Zuiko a serious downfall, but it's just my opinion.

 

[Ces1um]

Pentax

 

[M-88]

Pentax

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but as far as I recall, Pentax does not offer Spot metering in any compact body. In virtually every other term it is acceptable for me, more so because my digital is also Pentax and it would mean 100% lens interchangeability between my film and digital bodies. Something I can't achieve right now. It's not vital, but still something that leaves me wishing for more.

 

[Ces1um]

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but as far as I recall, Pentax does not offer Spot metering in any compact body.

I can't correct you, I don't know. My pentax answer was meant to be tongue in cheek (hence the emoticon).

 

[M-88]

I can't correct you, I don't know. My pentax answer was meant to be tongue in cheek (hence the emoticon).

Well I have contemplated Pentax for quite some time (check my edited post above). Especially MX.

 

[RattyMouse]

I agree that Nikon lenses are much more durable and rugged, but if we compare build quality, nothing ever beats Zeiss and Leica.

I dont think that is remotely true. I've seen several Nikon examples of gear that has gone through serious battles in the Vietnam war and still came out working just fine. Nikon built a pretty strong reputation for durability. I've never heard of Zeiss being used in such difficult circumstances.

 

[Ces1um]

Well I have contemplated Pentax for quite some time (check my edited post above). Especially MX.

I absolutely love my k1000 and my now expired k2. The meter is a center weighted average but I find it works very well overall (better meter than my voigtlander bessa r3m). My k1000 would be one of the last cameras I got rid of, and I find a lot of their smc-m lenses produce very nice results, esp my 100mm macro and 55mm lenses.

 

[flavio81]

Pentax

Pentax MX. Masterpiece camera.

 

[MattKing]

In my personal experience, I'm having hard times to fit objects in DOF created by f/1.8 lens. yes, it can be beneficial, but I ended up using 50 mm f/1.8 more often than 50 mm f/1.4, since f/2.8 is as low as I go in most of the cases. If I want extra performance, I prefer to push the film instead. A bit more grain can be tolerated, less sharpness - not so much. I wouldn't call "lack" of fast lenses in Zuiko a serious downfall, but it's just my opinion.

In my mind the biggest advantage of "fast" lenses isn't so much the fact that they offer more light gathering capacity on those infrequent ocassions when you need it. The biggest advantage is that they offer the brightest and most easiest to focus and compose image in the viewfinder for each and every photograph you take.
Of course, you need viewfinders that are capable of taking advantage of that - and that is where the OM line tends to excel.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I dont think that is remotely true. I've seen several Nikon examples of gear that has gone through serious battles in the Vietnam war and still came out working just fine. Nikon built a pretty strong reputation for durability. I've never heard of Zeiss being used in such difficult circumstances.

umm probably it would depend what Zeiss incarnation you talking about. Modern Zeiss are as flimsy as modern Nikon, but old Zeiss lenses where built as rock and as study as Nikon (if not better). Lets remember that Leica and Contax (Zeiss) saw combat even before Nikon ever existed

Also, lets remember that Zeiss lens went to the moon and space. It cant get any harsher than that.

Regards

Marcelo

 

[M-88]

In my mind the biggest advantage of "fast" lenses isn't so much the fact that they offer more light gathering capacity on those infrequent ocassions when you need it. The biggest advantage is that they offer the brightest and most easiest to focus and compose image in the viewfinder for each and every photograph you take.
Of course, you need viewfinders that are capable of taking advantage of that - and that is where the OM line tends to excel.

I find anything wider than f/2.8 acceptable. Of course it's great if the lens is f/1.4, but to be frank I can't see the difference. On the other hand, my f/3.5 lens is MUCH dimmer than f/2.8 and let's not compare it to anything faster

 

[Chan Tran]

I paid same for OM-4 as he paid for his X-700, which was 100$. It's a non-TI version with inferior circuit, no titanium and huge battery issues.

I'm half way through with first film and X-700 does well, but doesn't feel good. At least I can expect adequate optical performance, but my friend was right when he decided to put X-700 on sale.

Oh I was talking about new price. Checking the Adorama ads in Popular Photography May 1985 issue. The OM-4 body was $289.95 (Which is less than I remembered) and the X-700 was $151.95

 

[M-88]

Oh I was talking about new price. Checking the Adorama ads in Popular Photography May 1985 issue. The OM-4 body was $289.95 (Which is less than I remembered) and the X-700 was $151.95

My father was younger than I am right now back in 1985.

So in other words Minolta had no "true" professional grade equipment? Apart from XK?

 

[Chan Tran]

My father was younger than I am right now back in 1985.

So in other words Minolta had no "true" professional grade equipment? Apart from XK?

For manual focus the XK is still considered the most serious camera although it's quite older than others. For autofocus the Maxxum 9 is a good professional grade camera. I would consider the X-700 as a lesser camera compared to the XD-11 except that it has fast motor drive.

 

[M-88]

For manual focus the XK is still considered the most serious camera although it's quite older than others. For autofocus the Maxxum 9 is a good professional grade camera. I would consider the X-700 as a lesser camera compared to the XD-11 except that it has fast motor drive.

I saw XK. Once. It had a price tag higher than Olympus OM-4, Nikon F1/F2/F3 and anything from Canon. It cost around 500$. If I'm correct, it's a price of FM3a. Maxxum 9 (Dynax 9 out here) is indeed a terrific camera and perhaps a pinnacle of autofocus Minolta as a whole. I used to own Maxxum 9000, which, before dying on me, was a great photographic tool. Not to mention magical 50 mm f/1.7 autofocus lens. Never had any SRT or other X series machine.

 

[pentaxuser]

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,
.

Do you mean that from prints of the same scene taken at the same time, you can distinguish between a scene taken with an Olympus and one taken with a Nikon lens?

Can you say what these differences are?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[M-88]

Do you mean that from prints of the same scene taken at the same time, you can distinguish between a scene taken with an Olympus and one taken with a Nikon lens?

Can you say what these differences are?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Maybe different color cast or contrast due to different optics/coatings?