Manual focus glasses - Nikon or Olympus?

[Ap507b]

Have a selection of both Nikon & Olympus bodies & lenses.

Do agree with the comment that Olympus gear is more fragile than Nikon. All of my OM's have required a attention of one sort or another. Film advance clutches seem a weak point The most that any of my Nikon's have needed (An F2AS that I bought with a known broken finder aside) is the light seals replacing.

Have acquired a few Zuiko 50mm F1.8's over time & at least half of them have had slow apertures. Have around 15 Nikkor's & only 1 has had a slow aperture.

As for lens IQ, slight preference for the Nikkor's over the Zuiko's but IMO there is absolutely nothing wrong with what the Zuiko's produce. Read some not good things about the 70-150 F4 Zuiko but was really impressed with it when I got one. Have only found one Zuiko that I didn't rate & that was the 100-200. Just too slow for my liking at F5 & it kept blacking out te focusing aid.

Don't think you can go wrong with either. Really like the way that OM's handle.

 

[M-88]

Have acquired a few Zuiko 50mm F1.8's over time & at least half of them have had slow apertures. Have around 15 Nikkor's & only 1 has had a slow aperture.

Very true, two of my three current Zuiko 50/1.8 lenses had sticky apertures and I had to disassemble and fix them.

Read some not good things about the 70-150 F4 Zuiko but was really impressed with it when I got one. Have only found one Zuiko that I didn't rate & that was the 100-200. Just too slow for my liking at F5 & it kept blacking out te focusing aid.

I had 75-150 f/4 laat summer. I really liked that zooming in and out was done internally and didn't change outer dimension of the lens. My biggest issue with it was its weight. Just as it was with 35-70 mm zoom lens. So I sold them both and switched entirely to primes. A hibby is good when it doesn't make me sweat in summer.

Don't think you can go wrong with either. Really like the way that OM's handle.

Using Minolta X-700 opened my eyes a little. Olympus may not be a world-class thing, but there are certainly other cameras which feel much cheaper (although they produce similar quality images). So I better stick with what I have and not go through with hassle of switching a ehole system.

 

[jjphoto]

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

I no longer have a 1.4/50 Ais Nikkor, I had one for about 5 years back in the 80's/90's, although I still regularly use (x3) 1.4/50 Zuikos on a Sony digital camera, so I've never directly compared these (Nikkor vs Zuiko) lenses on the same subject and therefore can't answer your question with specific details. IMHO Zuiko's tend to be a little lower in contrast with more muted/pastel colours. Zuiko's tend to vignette more than other brands because their small size tends to cause mechanical vignetting.

I have a bit of a fetish for 50-58mm lenses so I have quite a few of them, for use on a Sony A7r2. What does stand out is just how different they all are in terms of the way they render the same image, shot at the same time and on the same camera. All lenses have to combat a range of aberrations and they all do this in slightly different ways. Some lenses are sharper at the edges, some in the centre, some handle flare better, some purple fringe like crazy, others not so much, distortion, bokeh, contrast, colour balance all vary. The exact mix of all of this and many other aberrations is what makes every lens a little different, but maybe not better. You can see this in some kinds of prints but not others, and some of these differences can be compensated in printing (eg. vignetting and contrast), but not others (eg. bokeh, distortion).

I recently tested about 20 different 50-58mm lenses on the same subject and found the sharpest lens at the EDGES and at infinity to be the Zuiko 1.4/50 serial #1020xxx (including Canon 1.2/50L, Leica Summicron-R 2/50, AE and MM Contax 1.4/50's, Yashica ML 1.4/50, Canon 1.2/55 SSC Aspherical and a bunch of others). So in this single respect this specific Zuiko was the 'best' but it is inferior in many other respects as there are many criteria that can be compared.

 

[flavio81]

I recently tested about 20 different 50-58mm lenses on the same subject and found the sharpest lens at the EDGES and at infinity to be the Zuiko 1.4/50 serial #1020xxx (including Canon 1.2/50L, Leica Summicron-R 2/50, AE and MM Contax 1.4/50's, Yashica ML 1.4/50, Canon 1.2/55 SSC Aspherical and a bunch of others). So in this single respect this specific Zuiko was the 'best' but it is inferior in many other respects as there are many criteria that can be compared.

Try the New FD 50/1.4 for edge sharpness. I've seen it fare very well on multi-lens 50mm comparisons. And, while i put my flame-proof suit on, I must say i never saw any Zuiko be superior on comparisons that included Canon, Nikon and Pentax competitors.

 

[darinwc]

Olympus had some great lenses. I think every manufacturer had certain lenses that really outperformed the others. But Olympus never really broke into the pro market like Canon and Nikon did. And then with their L and ED series they clinched it. Olympus was late in the game for those.

Still, Olympus was very successful. They sold many hundreds of thousands of cameras. I love my kit and would not trade it.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Try the New FD 50/1.4 for edge sharpness. I've seen it fare very well on multi-lens 50mm comparisons. And, while i put my flame-proof suit on, I must say i never saw any Zuiko be superior on comparisons that included Canon, Nikon and Pentax competitors.

Whle I think lens preference is a personal thing, Olympus focus was to get an excellent (not top notch or superior to other brands) glass on a small package, It is a proven fact that technically they where slightly inferior Canon or Nikon. They where intended to be so, so yeah, I suppose I would agree with your comment.

Marcelo

 

[flavio81]

Whle I think lens preference is a personal thing, Olympus focus was to get an excellent (not top notch or superior to other brands) glass on a small package, It is a proven fact that technically they where slightly inferior Canon or Nikon. They where intended to be so, so yeah, I suppose I would agree with your comment.

Marcelo

And I agree with you. But I forgot to say... any of those lenses, including the Olympus', will give satisfactory results if used properly.

 

[M-88]

Thanks to everyone who posted an opinion. If it was 8 years ago and I had no SLR, I'd certainly listen to you and go for Nikon, for sake of build quality. But right now it's just pointless.

 

[darinwc]

Whle I think lens preference is a personal thing, Olympus focus was to get an excellent (not top notch or superior to other brands) glass on a small package, It is a proven fact that technically they where slightly inferior Canon or Nikon. They where intended to be so, so yeah, I suppose I would agree with your comment.

Marcelo

I'm curious where you found the "proven fact" that Olympus lenses are inferior.
Not trying to start anything.. just genuinely curious.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I'm curious where you found the "proven fact" that Olympus lenses are inferior.
Not trying to start anything.. just genuinely curious.

There where benchmark made on their time. Will try to find a source. Thanks for quoting.

Marcelo

 

[xtolsniffer]

I have both a Nikon and Olympus system. Ignoring camera bodies, I don't find any differences in lens performance overall, certainly not at 10"x8" prints. Like all manufacturers, there are good and bad designs or good and bad examples. On tests, I find my little cheap Tamron 28mm AD2 is better than my Nikkor 24mm f2.8 in terms of absolute resolution but lower in contrast. My Nikkor 55mm macro and Zuiko 50 mm macro are both superb. One advantage of Zuiko lenses is the size and weight and almost all are 49mm filter thread that saves having step-down rings. The basic lenses are cheap and easy to find, more exotic ones rather expensive and rarer. You also have the option of the very exotic 20mm and 38mm macro lenses, but I use these on a Nikon system anyway via a modified Olympus bellows. Personally I wouldn't worry about the lens quality as long as you can get all the focal lengths you need. The body ergonomics is more of a decider. The Olympus viewfinder on the OM1n is probably the best on any camera I own, but all bodies (that's 3 OM1s, an OM2n and and OM4) have been in for repairs at some point and the OM4 is still not right. I think I've been unlucky, many people have had very reliable OM experiences, whereas I've never had a Nikon in for repair and I've managed to fix a few basket cases that I've picked up. Personally I trust Nikons and are wary of Olympus, but that's just my personal experience. Olympus cameras are beautiful and a joy to use but feel a little delicate for my liking.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I have both a Nikon and Olympus system. Ignoring camera bodies, I don't find any differences in lens performance overall, certainly not at 10"x8" prints. Like all manufacturers, there are good and bad designs or good and bad examples. On tests, I find my little cheap Tamron 28mm AD2 is better than my Nikkor 24mm f2.8 in terms of absolute resolution but lower in contrast. My Nikkor 55mm macro and Zuiko 50 mm macro are both superb. One advantage of Zuiko lenses is the size and weight and almost all are 49mm filter thread that saves having step-down rings. The basic lenses are cheap and easy to find, more exotic ones rather expensive and rarer. You also have the option of the very exotic 20mm and 38mm macro lenses, but I use these on a Nikon system anyway via a modified Olympus bellows. Personally I wouldn't worry about the lens quality as long as you can get all the focal lengths you need. The body ergonomics is more of a decider. The Olympus viewfinder on the OM1n is probably the best on any camera I own, but all bodies (that's 3 OM1s, an OM2n and and OM4) have been in for repairs at some point and the OM4 is still not right. I think I've been unlucky, many people have had very reliable OM experiences, whereas I've never had a Nikon in for repair and I've managed to fix a few basket cases that I've picked up. Personally I trust Nikons and are wary of Olympus, but that's just my personal experience. Olympus cameras are beautiful and a joy to use but feel a little delicate for my liking.

Glad you bring out that. It really is big plus. Most of my go to go Olympus lens (24,28,35,50 and even 100) uses the same filter so pretty handy. Thank for bringing this into the discussion.

By the way, all this Olympus/Nikon discussion has sparked my Nikon interested again. Have some Nikon bodies laying around that never had the chance to use (F, F2, FM and F2E mostly) as well as some Nikons lens as well. Will make some time to use them on a self assignment (local catholic temples) along with the medium format cameras and see how they behave.

Best regards
Marcelo

 

[whojammyflip]

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

In seriousness, I have a Pentax MX and hankered after an OM1. I got Michael Spencer to sort it out so it was like new, and then compared 28mm, 50mm MIJ, 135mm from Olympus to the same era Pentax M lenses. The Pentax 28/3.5 and 50/1.7 were appreciably sharper. The Oly 135mm was better than the Pentax M. However, to see these differences, I was using an Edmunds test chart at measured distances, with soft release cable and lens hoods. I reckon that when taking hand held photos, these sorts of differences will be lost, as the motion during capture and loss of contrast due to not using a hood will dwarf the variance between brands. However, I ended up keeping the Pentax kit. The Pentax M lenses are really nicely made. I do hanker after the fast Olympus lenses though....they are things of beauty when I see them on ebay. Ahhh, LBA.

 

[narsuitus]

I own and use glass made my Olympus, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Leica, Zeiss, and Pentax.

They all make excellent glass.

 

[M-88]

Changing a system is no more contemplated. If I fail to fix OM-4's spot metering system and somehow brick the camera, I'll hang on to my OM-1 and won't bother to sell everything to then buy the equivalent gear from other maker. It will be too much hassle for someone who clicks only for hobby.

 

[Vincent Peri]

Back in 1978, I took a photography course at Loyola University in New Orleans. The instructor used Olympus OM equipment, and he recommended it to us. The prints he showed looked soft to me, whereas the prints I was making in my darkroom with Leica R lenses were razor sharp. Soon afterwards, I sold my Leica equipment because of mechanical issues I was having with the lenses. I changed to Nikon (An FE w/ 5 Nikkor lenses to start) and never looked back.

 

[whojammyflip]

I'd argue that the kit, once it reaches an acceptable level of quality, becomes an irrelevance. We are all steered around by marketing and advertising, reaching for the next branch on the tree, letting the primitive lizard part of our brains get the better of us.

Heres what Olympus is capable of:
https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...1/jane-bown-a-life-in-photography-in-pictures

 

[Eric Rose]

It's all about lighting not lenses. Repeat this to yourself 10,000 times.

 

[darinwc]

I'd argue that the kit, once it reaches an acceptable level of quality, becomes an irrelevance. We are all steered around by marketing and advertising, reaching for the next branch on the tree, letting the primitive lizard part of our brains get the better of us.

Heres what Olympus is capable of:
https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...1/jane-bown-a-life-in-photography-in-pictures

well said!
And thank you for the link

 

[M-88]

I came across a battered FE in need of service, for cheap. And I just couldn't resist. Not so sure about the lens (yet), but the body stands one step higher than OM-1, OM-2 and OM-4. It's the small things that count and film advance, rewind, shutter speed selector and many many other details are a pure tactile joy even on the heavily used body.

Then I went completely cheap-o (how typical of me) and ordered a first generation of AI lens - 50 mm f/2. But since I have nothing left of my OM system except for OM-2 body and one 50 mm lens, both of which have to go, nothing stops me from piling up Nikon gear.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I
Then I went completely cheap-o (how typical of me) and ordered a first generation of AI lens - 50 mm f/2. But since I have nothing left of my OM system except for OM-2 body and one 50 mm lens, both of which have to go, nothing stops me from piling up Nikon gear.

Not to worry. That AI 50/2.0 Nikkor (possibly a Nikkor-H?) is an exceedingly good optic. The 1960s Japanese 50s from the early SLR era were an upgrade (but really, only a minor upgrade) from the earlier generation 50s that were made in LTM or Nikon/Contax mount. All the Japanese lens companies were trying to demonstrate their technical and optical excellence and prove that the SLRs could be fully professional machines. Any one of these Nikon, Minolta, Canon, Asahi, Topcon, Miranda, Konica, etc. lenses are refined and capable. The Takumar 55/1.7 is exceptionally good. Maybe the SLR Leitz 50/2.0-R lens has marginally better resolution, but it would be hard to demonstrate. Regardless, have fun.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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

Are you asking in order to take better photographs? Because that is not what is going to make any difference.

 

[M-88]

Not to worry. That AI 50/2.0 Nikkor (possibly a Nikkor-H?) is an exceedingly good optic. The 1960s Japanese 50s from the early SLR era were an upgrade (but really, only a minor upgrade) from the earlier generation 50s that were made in LTM or Nikon/Contax mount. All the Japanese lens companies were trying to demonstrate their technical and optical excellence and prove that the SLRs could be fully professional machines. Any one of these Nikon, Minolta, Canon, Topcon, Miranda, Konica, etc. lenses are refined and capable. Maybe the SLR Leitz 50/2.0-R lens has marginally better resolution, but it would be hard to demonstrate. Regardless, have fun.

No it is not H, it is "AI" version, but since it is the very first and short lived AI, I think optical scheme is the same as in non-AI, a couple of years later they introduced 50 mm with f/1.8 aperture. Barrel distortion worries me, to be honest, but it was really cheap and felt like a bargain even for that lens.

Are you asking in order to take better photographs? Because that is not what is going to make any difference.

Thank you, that's something I came to realize some time after opening this thread last summer. There are simply too many variables to consider and true superiority can probably be achieved only in well staged, well developed studio shots which will have to be printed on a wallpaper size.

And yes, the image quality is what I was asking.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

...

Thank you, that's something I came to realize some time after opening this thread last summer. There are simply too many variables to consider and true superiority can probably be achieved only in well staged, well developed studio shots which will have to be printed on a wallpaper size.

And yes, the image quality is what I was asking.

Well, image quality is subjective and Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta, Fujica, Konica all fall so close that it matters not from optics' end. Add Topcon, Mamiya and few others to this mix and you have an endless choice. So in the end, it is not so much the optics that make the difference, but rather the rest of the gear as they all have own quirks that some like, others dislike. It is just how a camera handles, how it sounds, how it mashes with your hands and mind.

If you have Olympus, there is nothing stopping you from reaching outstanding photographic heights gear wise. But perhaps you do need to check out other makes for exact reasons I just mentioned. So, do you feel the connection with Olympus when shooting, or is it more like ... meh, just as well might try something else? You would not be alone if you are thinking of a change, as the enjoyment only comes when it all clicks just right.

 

[M-88]

Well, image quality is subjective and Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta, Fujica, Konica all fall so close that it matters not from optics' end. Add Topcon, Mamiya and few others to this mix and you have an endless choice. So in the end, it is not so much the optics that make the difference, but rather the rest of the gear as they all have own quirks that some like, others dislike. It is just how a camera handles, how it sounds, how it mashes with your hands and mind.

If you have Olympus, there is nothing stopping you from reaching outstanding photographic heights gear wise. But perhaps you do need to check out other makes for exact reasons I just mentioned. So, do you feel the connection with Olympus when shooting, or is it more like ... meh, just as well might try something else? You would not be alone if you are thinking of a change, as the enjoyment only comes when it all clicks just right.

I love OM system, it is as compact as the system can be, ergonomics are good and versatility is right there. However, Nikon FE accomplishes all that, I can change the speed while looking through viewfinder, with a single finger even without having the shutter dial around the lens (something I couldn't do on any other camera I had before) and admittedly, it feels like a higher class camera in terms of build quality. It's got everything I need except for multispot metering of OM-4. Since I don't have OM-4 anymore, FE has more features than my current OM-2 (AE lock, mirror locku, aperture readout window, multiexposure capability) and although it's all the same most of the time, those small things are still somewhat handy even for an amateur.