Olympus OM Zuiko lenses

[Arturo Carmona]

Hello! I have been researching about this lenses and I just found some useful but sketchy information. I also asked to Olympus but they say that have not that information. (WTF!!? ), so I contact you. Do you know the differences between Olympus OM Zuiko MC(multicoating) lenses and modern ones (those which only have the zuiko labeling). And even more, do you know how to identify zuiko ones from the most modern zuiko. Is there any difference between them??

Thanks!!

 

[MattKing]

Just so you know, it is unnecessary to post the same enquiry in two different threads.
My most useful links for OM information are the following: http://omesif.moosemystic.net/om-sif.htm
and http://olympus.dementix.org/Hardware/olympus_hw.html

 

[wiltw]

All OM lenses use the original OM mount (OM-1, -2,-3, -4, -10) and all are mechanical linkage diaphram, all-manual focus lenses (with exception of Zuiko 35-70mm f/4 AF lens)

Recent Olympus lenses are generally electrical linkage AF lenses fitting the 4/3 mount developed jointly by Olympus and Panasonic.

 

[Arturo Carmona]

Just so you know, it is unnecessary to post the same enquiry in two different threads.
My most useful links for OM information are the following: http://omesif.moosemystic.net/om-sif.htm
and http://olympus.dementix.org/Hardware/olympus_hw.html

Great info Matt! Altought I already knew almost all of that, it has dropped some more details. However, I am looking for answer in relation to modern coatings, if all of them was made by the same approach or not, I mean, is there any difference of the coatings in MC labeled ones vs modern coatings of zuiko labeled ones? Or are they the same? In the article you shared it is mentioned by the way, but not make a deep statement of it.

Thanks again guys!

 

[MattKing]

In some cases, the coatings evolved over time, and the badging changed over time.
In the Sales Information file link above, under the Lens Group, there is a Zuiko Lens Terminology link: http://omesif.moosemystic.net/om-sif/lensgroup/lensterms.htm
Note the discussion at the end of that link.
There is lots of anecdotal information out there, coupled with lens tests, that is a great source for internet discussions.
I've never found the issue to be particularly critical, in the 45 years I've been using the lenses.

 

[wiltw]

Pentax was the first to market with Multicoated lenses, so in the 1970s when the OM line was introduced, MC was still an attention grabbing feature!
Today, everything is multicoated, in terms of lenses, so it no longer is a marketing distinction that it was 50 years ago!

 

[Arturo Carmona]

Great info guys! Thank you all!

 

[MattiS]

Maybe Olypedia will give you some additional information - unfortunately it is in German language.

 

[MattKing]

Maybe Olypedia will give you some additional information - unfortunately it is in German language.

Great link! I've added it to my collection.

 

[mawz]

Pentax was the first to market with Multicoated lenses, so in the 1970s when the OM line was introduced, MC was still an attention grabbing feature!
Today, everything is multicoated, in terms of lenses, so it no longer is a marketing distinction that it was 50 years ago!

That's actually a bit of a myth, Pentax wasn't first to market with multi-coating. Most of the lenses we today call single-coated are in fact multi-coated, at least from the early 60's onward.

The groundbreaking aspects of Pentax's Super Multi Coating were twofold.

1. Use of more than 5 layers of multi-coating, and use of thinner layers. This allowed the coatings to be significantly more effective than the thicker 2-4 layer coatings that were common in the late 60's (and are incorrectly called Single Coating)

2. Coating durability. SMC was a game changer in terms of durability, to the point that some Pentax reps were known to extinguish cigarettes on the front element of a lens as a demo. This meant that the lenses were much more resistant to damage than the competition and is one reason why SMC Takumars are so common today.

 

[wiltw]

That's actually a bit of a myth, Pentax wasn't first to market with multi-coating. Most of the lenses we today call single-coated are in fact multi-coated, at least from the early 60's onward.

Doing a bit more fishing, I find substantation of your statement:

"Minolta roduced the world's first multicoated consumer photographic lens in 1956 ...After 1958 when Minolta ended development of interchangeable-lens rangefinder products and focused on interchangeable SLR cameras and lenses, their Achromatic coating was continually updated throughout production with major coating advances being seen in 1966 (MC), 1973 (MC-X), and finally through 1977 to 1984 (MD-I, II, III). Hard-coatings were initially used in the immediate SR SLR series lenses. MC corresponds to the application of achromatic layers on all lens surfaces with new 'ingredients' ('Double Achromatic'), while MC-X introduced even more layers of new 'ingredients' ('Super Achromatic Coating') similar to Pentax's SMC, achieving an empirical improvement of about 1 stop with regards to flare and contrast control of dominating light sources. Beginning with the MD series lenses, additional layers were introduced as standard, although it is clear that for all lenses in any series, improvements in coatings were gradually introduced into production lenses as they were developed...
"Asahi Optical claimed their SMC Takumar lenses (1971, Japan) to be the first all-multicoated (Super-Multi-Coated) lenses for consumer cameras (M42 screw mount Asahi Pentax SLRs) although all of the other major manufacturers were already using their own proprietary coating similar to Minolta's Double Achromatic process"
​

So indeed Asahi did launch their Super Multicoated lense in 1971, after having bought patents from Optical Coatings Laboratories Inc. (OCLI), based in California., according to some sources. So they 'made hay' of the 7 layers of multicoating, but multicoating itself was already present in a number of lenses by other manufacturers. Not too different from Sony making hay about 'mirrorless' even though that design feature had been part of the 4/3 format dSLR since launch, Asahi made hay of a feature found in other products.

 

[flavio81]

Minolta's achromatic coating was a double-layer coating.

Double layer coatings were around since the 1950s...

As for pentax's 7 layer SMC process or Fuji "11 layer" process, in truth many of the "multicoated lenses" may even have single-layer coatings in one or more surfaces. Coating many layers is an expensive process and a manufacturer will choose the minimum needed coatings to get good performance.

In 1971 Canon released their lenses with either a "SC" ("Spectra Coating") process or a "SSC" {Super Spectra Coating) process. The SC lenses were only single or double-layer coated. Canon publicly issued a statement telling that multi-coating is mainly good for increasing light transmission, and that not all lenses or every lens surface will need multi coating. And the Canon 50/1.8 SC lens ranked as one of the best in flare prevention on a 1973 flare test (chart below). It's true that Pentax SMC lenses were the best ranked too, but careful examination of some of them (i.e. 35/3.5) will show that not all surfaces are multicoated.

Table sourced from: Popular Photography 1973

 

[ciniframe]

Hello! I have been researching about this lenses and I just found some useful but sketchy information. I also asked to Olympus but they say that have not that information. (WTF!!? ), so I contact you. Do you know the differences between Olympus OM Zuiko MC(multicoating) lenses and modern ones (those which only have the zuiko labeling). And even more, do you know how to identify zuiko ones from the most modern zuiko. Is there any difference between them??

Thanks!!

Why are you surprised that Olympus does not have answers. All the people from the OM era are retired or dead. Now Olympus is well and truly out of the camera business. I doubt they have any interest in retaining specific details of a era that ended two decades ago. I’m an Olympus user from way back, when the only reflex they made was the half frame Pen F ( great and unique camera by the way). Olympus is no longer the keeper of the flame, sad but, there it is.

 

[wiltw]

Hello! I have been researching about this lenses and I just found some useful but sketchy information. I also asked to Olympus but they say that have not that information. (WTF!!? ), so I contact you. Do you know the differences between Olympus OM Zuiko MC(multicoating) lenses and modern ones (those which only have the zuiko labeling). And even more, do you know how to identify zuiko ones from the most modern zuiko. Is there any difference between them??

Thanks!!

What specific questions do you have about OM lenses? I have a book published by Olympus on the OM lenses, The OM System Lens Handbook, with 1985 print date.
I have no data about modern 4/3 system lenses.

 

[Nodda Duma]

In general, anti-reflection coatings have changed significantly in the past 50 years. Today’s coating typically are more durable and consistent due to advances in coating design, quality control, and changes in the deposition processes over that time.

I posted a thread several years ago which has since been stickied detailing AR coatings. Might be useful to review.

 

[Dennis S]

Another good site for Zuiko lenses:
Guide to Classic Olympus OM Zuiko lenses on film and Sony Full Frame - phillipreeve.net

 

[wiltw]

Another good site for Zuiko lenses:
Guide to Classic Olympus OM Zuiko lenses on film and Sony Full Frame - phillipreeve.net

Just wanted to point out this does not have a complete listing of OM lenses. For example, it is missing the OM 24mm f/3.5 PC shift lens.and the multiple 35-75mm zooms. But for the lenses it does list, an assessment which is beneficial information.

 

[wiltw]

It was quite helpful for me choosing a Zuiko MC 85 f2 lens through the serial numbers on the lenses

Good point...the OM lenses have gone thru 'version changes' with performance differences measured between versions. OTOH, simply via ordinary and expected manufacturing variances we see differences of measured performance between samples of the same generation, too!

 

[Dennis S]

Yes on a few different sites besides this one I came up with one of the better ones with MC with the over 200000 serial number. I is just a shame that they are very popular with the digital crowd which pumped the price tag to a high price, I really searched for quite a bit and found one reasonable and even came with the corresponding lens case with is rare as I have seen.

 

[Bob L]

Didn’t want to start a new thread so this is a good place to ask: awhile ago I got an OM-1 and I fell in love with it. It’s just fun to shoot as anyone who has one knows. I mostly shot with the 50 1.8 MIJ (and a little bit of the 28 3.5). I was disheartened to see just so-so results, which honestly for 35mm are probably normal.

The question, has anyone had experience with the 50mm f2 macro? I’m chasing after an IQ dragon that I probably won’t catch, but I don’t want to give up on the system and am hoping the results I get from a lens considered to be one of the best to closer match my experience shooting with the camera.

 

[thuggins]

Didn’t want to start a new thread so this is a good place to ask: awhile ago I got an OM-1 and I fell in love with it. It’s just fun to shoot as anyone who has one knows. I mostly shot with the 50 1.8 MIJ (and a little bit of the 28 3.5). I was disheartened to see just so-so results, which honestly for 35mm are probably normal.

The question, has anyone had experience with the 50mm f2 macro? I’m chasing after an IQ dragon that I probably won’t catch, but I don’t want to give up on the system and am hoping the results I get from a lens considered to be one of the best to closer match my experience shooting with the camera.

It is hard to imagine the "so-so" results you got with your Olympus kit. The 50mm MIJ is notorious as one of the best "standard" lenses out there. I've tested it myself and the results were amazing. The 28mm is also a fine lens, even though it is the slowest of the three that Olympus made.

I have the 50/f3.5 macro and, it too, is an excellent lens. On a 4/3 camera it gives a native 1:1 magnification, so I use it to d!&!+!#e my film.

 

[Bob L]

It is hard to imagine, yes, but here we are.

I shot it stopped down, wide open (without a hood, mind you, but wasn't in flare-prone scenarios most of the time). I scanned it with my A7R3. It was just kinda meh. I knew about the harsh bokeh beforehand, so that wasn't a surprise. I dunno, maybe my expectations were off. I want to shoot with this camera, because it's great.

 

[btaylor]

Odd. What is the definition of “so-so?” Of course you like what you like, I get that, but the OM system was of solid quality in their time. Is it OOF areas you don’t like? Sharpness? Contrast? More detail, please.
I got my first OM in ‘78 and loved it. Over time I seemed to have a sharpness/focus issue, but mostly I chalked it up to operator error. Then using a WA lens (FFD issues are magnified) and careful focusing it was clear I had a camera issue. Sent it off to a tech with instructions to check for focus error. Came back the same- sent it elsewhere and the tech found a focus screen position error. All works great now!
I hope you find the cause of your “meh” images.

 

[bp_reid]

I had a dabble with OM gear in the last few years. IMO the 50/2 was the best Zuiko I tried. I used quite a few including all of the 50s.

The contrast and colour rendition of OM glass as a whole is not my favourite but that’s a matter of taste so I’ve pretty much sold it all off. I would say the 50/2 was hardest to part with. It does better on overall look of images as on sharpness metrics. It is however quite bulky for a 50/2 to use as a daily lens which maybe negates one of the perceived benefits of using OM gear?

FWIW the 40/2 has nice rendition too. But isn’t as sharp and, well, prices are insane.

 

[Bob L]

Odd. What is the definition of “so-so?” Of course you like what you like, I get that, but the OM system was of solid quality in their time. Is it OOF areas you don’t like? Sharpness? Contrast? More detail, please.

I'll have to go back and look at my scans, but I didn't like color and contrast I was getting. I also shot some landscapes stopped down and the performance didn't wow me. But again, much of it was handheld and without a hood, so shame on me there. I think I'll shoot a few more rolls and see how it goes, because I like the experience so much.

The contrast and colour rendition of OM glass as a whole is not my favourite but that’s a matter of taste so I’ve pretty much sold it all off. I would say the 50/2 was hardest to part with. It does better on overall look of images as on sharpness metrics. It is however quite bulky for a 50/2 to use as a daily lens which maybe negates one of the perceived benefits of using OM gear?

Yeah, that was my concern. I think I've diverted my GAS elsewhere for now.