Agreed.
Olympus OM Zuiko lenses and ridiculous prices?
-
A
- Thread starter dugrant153
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Ilford 4x6 Post Card Paper
- Started by Rick A
-
Want to Buy WTB Olympus MotorDrive 2 with Control Pack and Charger
- Started by nbagno
-
Want to Buy WTB - Canon 110ED
- Started by cptrios
-
Sold NIKON D800 (read)
- Started by Acere
-
Want to Buy WTB Konica Hexar RF
- Started by axestrata
Forum statistics
MattKing
Moderator
At least with respect to the fast wide angle lenses, they are definitely easier to focus than their slower brethren.
The Zuiko 35mm f/2 is my standard lens.
The Zuiko 35mm f/2 is my standard lens.
Because I live in Western Washington State and it has more cloudy and dark days every winter than most other places have in ten years. A fast lens is easier to focus and I don't have to push 400 speed film to 1600 for everyday use.
And here's a bokeh comparison for you:
Which one is the good one?
Most people like smooth, creamy bokeh (the first image) which doesn't cause any distraction or bring attention to itself. The most expensive cine lenses all have very smooth bokeh for this reason. On the other hand harsh bokeh does bring attention to itself, and is therefore distracting, but this doesn't have to be a bad thing, it can just be used badly or inappropriately (such as film/video). So to answer your question, neither is the "good one", they are just different. I actually like very harsh bokeh but it's not always easy to use well.
Both images are also from the same lens, a Meogon 80/2.8 enlarging lens! The bokeh is different depending on whether the OOF area is in front or behind the point of focus.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fast lenses are certainly not always better, some times they are optically worse than their slower versions, but they do have their advantages.
With some 50/1.4's I've noticed that you can get a smoother bokeh from the F1.4 lens stopped down to F2.8 than you get from an F2.0 lens stopped down to F2.8.
When shot wide open fast lenses can have a funky or interesting look of their own, which can be useful.
They can be easier to focus, but not always as some fast lenses are not very sharp wide open anyway.
I think there are tangible differences and good reasons to have fast lenses but it depends on what you shoot. A fast lens won't help the average landscape shooter that shoots at F8-11 all the time. At the end of the day you can always stop a fast lens down but you can't open up a slow lens.
It's simple supply and demand
A lot of the OM System lenses had fairly low production numbers. Total number of OM System SLRs was several million.
The 40mm f2.0 Zuiko Auto-S production was probably around 10,000 units.
The 24mm f2.8 Zuiko Auto-W production was at least 125,000 units.
The 24mm f2.0 Zuiko Auto-W production should be 18,000-20,000 units.
The 21mm f2.0 Zuiko Auto-W production was less than 7,000 units.
The 100mm f2.0 Zuiko Auto-T production was less than 10,000 units.
The 250mm f2.0 Zuiko Auto-T production was around 600 units.
If there are only a few for sale, the sellers may have the advantage.
I've been trying to build up an OM system after having some pretty good success shooting a few events with an OM4.
However, I was browsing some of the lenses on Ebay (40mm F2, 24mm F2.8, etc.) and could not believe the asking prices. Perhaps it has to do with less supply than say Nikon or Canon lenses but .... wow. I'm just stunned.
Has the Olympus OM system really made a massive resurgence such that lenses that people couldn't get rid of before are now becoming crazy popular? Is it the mirrorless digital systems?
Or maybe I'm looking at the wrong sellers
A lot of the OM System lenses had fairly low production numbers. Total number of OM System SLRs was several million.
The 40mm f2.0 Zuiko Auto-S production was probably around 10,000 units.
The 24mm f2.8 Zuiko Auto-W production was at least 125,000 units.
The 24mm f2.0 Zuiko Auto-W production should be 18,000-20,000 units.
The 21mm f2.0 Zuiko Auto-W production was less than 7,000 units.
The 100mm f2.0 Zuiko Auto-T production was less than 10,000 units.
The 250mm f2.0 Zuiko Auto-T production was around 600 units.
If there are only a few for sale, the sellers may have the advantage.
IIRC, the 1.8 50 mm Zuiko was acknowledged to be a better lens than the 1.4. Standard lenses of F1.8 - 2 and wides of F2.8 from most manufacturers are still reasonably priced and perfectly usable photographic tools. In the days before sellers broke cameras into parts to get the highest price, most were sold with a lens. I have a bunch of 50mm 1.8s in the camera drawer, and all are good performers. The main drive on prices of wide aperture lenses are a) oneupmanship (mine-is-wider-than-yours), b) DSLR users, especially for movie use, c) lack of supply. Regarding cinematography, for close ups and medium shots, F2.8 still gives a narrow DoF, F2 is the practical limit for tracking a moving person, and that with great difficulty, and 1.4 is pot luck if sharp focus is a requirement. Most subjects simply do not require the degree of separation ultra-wide aperture lenses facilitate. Save some money and spend it on film.
The subject of maximum lens apertures seems sometimes to provoke a frenzy of discussion. A welter of people often weigh in with "you never need more than than 2.8", uttered with all the indignant moral conviction of the true Zealot.
The use of large apertures is not limited to bokeh-fiends or subject separation. Sometimes an extra stop (or two) is needed to make a photograph handheld at shutter-speeds that would would otherwise be impossible to hand-hold. For some, therefore, the difference between f/2 and f/2.8 is simply the difference between 1/15th and 1/8th.
What one person considers another "needs" is of no import in discussions like this. Dogmatic statements about the largest aperture "anyone" needs is simply another example of an invented snobbery.
The use of large apertures is not limited to bokeh-fiends or subject separation. Sometimes an extra stop (or two) is needed to make a photograph handheld at shutter-speeds that would would otherwise be impossible to hand-hold. For some, therefore, the difference between f/2 and f/2.8 is simply the difference between 1/15th and 1/8th.
What one person considers another "needs" is of no import in discussions like this. Dogmatic statements about the largest aperture "anyone" needs is simply another example of an invented snobbery.
Clearly, a wide maximum aperture is sometimes useful, but there's always a work around. Nearly all the 'zealots' for ultrawide aperture lenses seem to spend their time perfecting out of focus highlights instead of making photographs. It's their time and money, I was answering the OPs question about the climb in lens prices and who was behind it. Film professionals often bought wide aperture lenses because the IQ was superior a stop, or two, down. That tendency seems to have died in the chase for wider is better shooting.
Here is a link to 'The Unofficial Olympus Lens Page.' http://chlngr.com/zuiko.html
The page was last updated NOV 2004.
I have found the page to be helpful / informative when trying to 'ball-park' prices for OM Zuiko lenses.
Marc
The page was last updated NOV 2004.
I have found the page to be helpful / informative when trying to 'ball-park' prices for OM Zuiko lenses.
Marc
The Leica crowd have driven up the prices. The OM system was created by Yoshihisa Maitani to be the SLR version of the the Leica M rangefinder camera. The original OM camera, the M1 copied Leica clowsely enough to use a model name which Leica produced.
The OM camera's dimensions were carefully compared to the Leica M during development, and the OM camera was kept as small and silent as was possible for an SLR camera at the time. The lenses were also designed to be small and light, keeping the weight of the entire kit low.
Compared side-by-side, an Olympus OM camera and lens are remarkablly similar in size and proportion to a Leica M camera (I shoot both systems, and have compared them myself more than a few times). Internet forums and posts have sung the praises of the OM system, directly comparing it with Leica gear, and more than a few have become interested in shooting or simply collecting OM gear. The relative scarcity of the faster OM lenses have had their values driven up disproportionately high, particularly the 40/2, which isn't nearly as good a performer as the dirt cheap 50/1.8.
I have sold off much of my OM stuff (for a profit), and now shoot mostly with rangefinders, or Nikon SLR's (just a matter of taste for me).
The OM camera's dimensions were carefully compared to the Leica M during development, and the OM camera was kept as small and silent as was possible for an SLR camera at the time. The lenses were also designed to be small and light, keeping the weight of the entire kit low.
Compared side-by-side, an Olympus OM camera and lens are remarkablly similar in size and proportion to a Leica M camera (I shoot both systems, and have compared them myself more than a few times). Internet forums and posts have sung the praises of the OM system, directly comparing it with Leica gear, and more than a few have become interested in shooting or simply collecting OM gear. The relative scarcity of the faster OM lenses have had their values driven up disproportionately high, particularly the 40/2, which isn't nearly as good a performer as the dirt cheap 50/1.8.
I have sold off much of my OM stuff (for a profit), and now shoot mostly with rangefinders, or Nikon SLR's (just a matter of taste for me).
As a Leica owner and user of (but not owner) of various Olympus OMs - I personally do not see the similarity. Not anymore than a Pentax MX or Minolta XD-11 being a "small SLR."
Please keep in mind that the OM-1 hit the market in 1972. The MX (1976) and XD-11 (1977) were introduced somewhat later. At the time of introduction the OM-1 was unique in its size, a uniqueness that disappeared when other manufacturers introduced similar sized bodies.
Yeah well I'm just saying its a small SLR. Technically the Nikon F is derived from their rangefinder line and could be argued to be more similar to a Leica as a result. Personally I'm not making a weak argument like that.
Most people like smooth, creamy bokeh (the first image) which doesn't cause any distraction or bring attention to itself. The most expensive cine lenses all have very smooth bokeh for this reason. On the other hand harsh bokeh does bring attention to itself, and is therefore distracting, but this doesn't have to be a bad thing, it can just be used badly or inappropriately (such as film/video). So to answer your question, neither is the "good one", they are just different. I actually like very harsh bokeh but it's not always easy to use well.
Both images are also from the same lens, a Meogon 80/2.8 enlarging lens! The bokeh is different depending on whether the OOF area is in front or behind the point of focus.
"Wenn ich Bokeh höre ... entsichere ich meinen Browning!" - Unknown photographer (20th century).
On this 'fast lens vs slow lens' debate, lens performance is not always a factor in selecting one over the other. All my Zuikos are the slower lenses because I value compact size and lighter weight and, as a bonus, all have the same 49mm filter size. Whatever we decide all choices invlove compromises and trade offs. Sometimes the littlest thing makes a big difference. On my OM-1 bodies I leave off the hot shoe, it is amazing what a preceptual difference that makes in the feel of the camera even though it is a very small part.
About the 40mm f2. I've had 3 pass through my hands, all purchased for much less than the then current adverage price. The last one I bought several years ago for $200 and sold for $600. That lens is just too valueable to be a user. All my Zuikos would be rated BGN or UG by KEH but work fine.
In regard to OM-1 vs M body size. I've had OM-1 for 40 years and when I finally got an M4-2 in 2010 I was surprised at how small the OM was sitting back to back with the Leica, only the mirror box makes it thicker and the prism peak is barely 1/2 inch higher.
About the 40mm f2. I've had 3 pass through my hands, all purchased for much less than the then current adverage price. The last one I bought several years ago for $200 and sold for $600. That lens is just too valueable to be a user. All my Zuikos would be rated BGN or UG by KEH but work fine.
In regard to OM-1 vs M body size. I've had OM-1 for 40 years and when I finally got an M4-2 in 2010 I was surprised at how small the OM was sitting back to back with the Leica, only the mirror box makes it thicker and the prism peak is barely 1/2 inch higher.
Frankly, I haven't gone shopping OM lenses lately and my stable is the most basic lineup: 50 1.8 MiJ, 28 3.5 and 135 3.5. Very happy with all of them.
HAve taken a quick bay look and I recall them being lower.
Agreed. I stick to the 50mm 1.8 for versatility; I'd use the 28mm more if it had those fractions of a stop extra. Very and specially useful and needed when using slow speed film... Kodachrome 64, that was a tough one at times.
Nowadays with great fast films (thinking Portra) not such a concern, but sometimes that extra stop would be very useful.
As of the OM-1 size, it's still a quite remarkable one. I got an EPL2 with kit zoom, micro 4/3 which was deemed a nice format for minaturization... But the size of both is quite equal! So much for "progress". The same can be said about many AF 35mm SLRs however.
HAve taken a quick bay look and I recall them being lower.
Agreed. I stick to the 50mm 1.8 for versatility; I'd use the 28mm more if it had those fractions of a stop extra. Very and specially useful and needed when using slow speed film... Kodachrome 64, that was a tough one at times.
Nowadays with great fast films (thinking Portra) not such a concern, but sometimes that extra stop would be very useful.
As of the OM-1 size, it's still a quite remarkable one. I got an EPL2 with kit zoom, micro 4/3 which was deemed a nice format for minaturization... But the size of both is quite equal! So much for "progress". The same can be said about many AF 35mm SLRs however.
So they gotta shrink the sensor to make it as small as the OM?!
About the digital SLR...what a monster!
It almost dwarfs my medium format SLR!
Definitely Mr.Maitani was a great designer! Matched an SLR to the Leica M's and with an air of elegance. Last friday I was around a video set and the director had a Minolta 7s... Which looked to me bigger than the OM, without direct comparison.
On a trip my dad was surprised when he lifted my OM kit. 28+50+135+body. "This thing weighs nothing".
Out of the forum scope, but almost no one nowadays put a 35mm sized sensor into a smallish camera! The 4/3 (and later m4/3) was marketed as an ideal size and for being smaller than the other formats. Now manufacturers seem to seek smaller size, but not on 35mm; Seems like it's quite hard to do... Perhaps it's something they will unleash some day for increasing sales.
At first I didn't see the OMs as THAT small, but having compared I see they are!
I think since there is so much praise for the Zuiko optics on so many various forums across both film and digital formats the prices for these lenses will only go up. I track ebay daily for certain lenses that I want, Zuikos included and for the past year havent bought a single one. The prices have been quite high compared to a number of deals I was able to snag 2 or 3 years before. I am happy that I have my main shooting kit set, 28mm f2, 50mm 1.4, 85mm f2 on a few OM4Ts. I would recommend others to look for 3rd party lenses, as they are actually quite good as well. I have a 19mm-35mm f3.5-4.5 vivitar series 1 and a 35mm-70mm f2.8 tokina atx zoom lens that perform great for the price. I also have a Komine 24mm f2 which also performs very well.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |