Olympus Pen F Lens Performance Analysis

[loccdor]

Adapted from this magazine article from 1969, I made a spreadsheet comparing 9 of the half frame lenses. As we know, these numbers can be more important when talking about small formats.

A resolution of 80 was the maximum the test could determine. Values of 90 imply it was above their testable limit, but it's unclear by how much. Judging from image samples online, values of 40 are high enough for very detailed photography.

Based on this information and current prices I'd personally select either 20mm f/3.5 or 25mm f/2.8 for the wide lens, any normal lens other than the f/1.2 or non-pancake f/2.8, and the 100mm for telephoto.

Feel free to share your own experiences with this system.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a pen F with the 40mm 1.4, I have only shot a few rolls of film though it over the years, was able to get a pretty good 5X7 but 8X10 were just ok. In the day, 60s and 70s there were articles in Pop Photo and Modern Photo by 1/2 frame enthusiasts who claimed that when a tripod, cable release and Pan X film they were able to print 11X14. I dont recall the magazine so unsure of which film and developer that was used. Best guess is if based in the U.S then Plus X, so I wounder how these lens would test out with microfiche or Tmax 100.

 

[blee1996]

Thanks for the compilation. My 40/1.4 performs well enough that I don't long for another lens.

 

[wiltw]

I have a pen F with the 40mm 1.4, I have only shot a few rolls of film though it over the years, was able to get a pretty good 5X7 but 8X10 were just ok. In the day, 60s and 70s there were articles in Pop Photo and Modern Photo by 1/2 frame enthusiasts who claimed that when a tripod, cable release and Pan X film they were able to print 11X14. I dont recall the magazine so unsure of which film and developer that was used. Best guess is if based in the U.S then Plus X, so I wounder how these lens would test out with microfiche or Tmax 100.

Not surprising at all, in view of the fact that half-frame 8x10 requires twice the magnification of FF film to 8x10, and it has been widely accepted for decades that 16X magnification was pretty much the limit of acceptable results from FF film, particularly due to apparent grain.

 

[loccdor]

I have a pen F with the 40mm 1.4, I have only shot a few rolls of film though it over the years, was able to get a pretty good 5X7 but 8X10 were just ok. In the day, 60s and 70s there were articles in Pop Photo and Modern Photo by 1/2 frame enthusiasts who claimed that when a tripod, cable release and Pan X film they were able to print 11X14. I dont recall the magazine so unsure of which film and developer that was used. Best guess is if based in the U.S then Plus X, so I wounder how these lens would test out with microfiche or Tmax 100.

Not sure about the film used for the test. It would have to be a pretty detailed one to go up to their 80 figure - because in sample images I see online with these lenses mounted to APS-C digital cameras, they achieve maximum detail by the time they're hitting around 40-56.

I'll have a Pen FV and several lenses delivered tomorrow so I can start doing some real world comparisons at that point! I'll put it through the paces with Acros or HR-50.

 

[Paul Howell]

I dont recall what film I used, but likely Ultrfine 100 or such. I'll put it on list to dig out my Pen F and shoot a roll of tmax 100, develop in MCM 100, a very fine gain developer formulated for miniature cameras in the 50s.

 

[r_a_feldman]

Thanks for compiling the stats that you did, but I’d like to see the numbers for the 25mm f4 and 38mm f1.8, as these are the more common lenses than the 25mm f2.8 and 38mm f3.5 macro.

 

[xkaes]

One more reason to use full-frame lenses on Pen F cameras. A wider selection of lenses, easier and cheaper to buy, and better performance.

 

[loccdor]

Thanks for compiling the stats that you did, but I’d like to see the numbers for the 25mm f4 and 38mm f1.8, as these are the more common lenses than the 25mm f2.8 and 38mm f3.5 macro.

I'd like that too but I didn't want to mix numbers from multiple people's tests that might be using a different methodology.

The 25mm f/4 has poor corner sharpness that I think has to do with flatness of field - I'd like to know if there's ever an aperture where the corners become okay. Can improve shots where only the central subject is important though. Likewise, the non-pancake 38mm f/2.8 has poor corner sharpness.

The 38mm f/1.8 should be almost the same as the other normal lenses after f/2.8.

It's funny how the prices of all these lenses back then were almost equal, compared to the wild differences today!

 

[thinkbrown]

I have a pen F with the 40mm 1.4, I have only shot a few rolls of film though it over the years, was able to get a pretty good 5X7 but 8X10 were just ok. In the day, 60s and 70s there were articles in Pop Photo and Modern Photo by 1/2 frame enthusiasts who claimed that when a tripod, cable release and Pan X film they were able to print 11X14. I dont recall the magazine so unsure of which film and developer that was used. Best guess is if based in the U.S then Plus X, so I wounder how these lens would test out with microfiche or Tmax 100.

I don't have a pen f, but I can confirm impressive results with TMax 100 on half frame (Pentax 17). I've only made 5x7 prints of them so far but I have no doubt an 8x10 would look excellent.

 

[xkaes]

I get great 16x20" prints from my Pen FT with APX 25 and Minolta Rokkor lenses. The half-frame format is not a limitation. In fact, with my full-frame 35mm negatives, I usually crop anyway -- and for an 8x10" I have to.

 

[dynachrome]

I may yet get interested in Olympus Pen equipment. I have two half-frame cameras and both are Konicas. One is the Auto Reflex, which can be used for either full frame or half-frame shooting. The other is the AA 35, known as the Recorder outside of the US, which is often mistaken for a disc camera. When I have used the Auto Reflex in half-frame mode, my favorite slightly wide standard lens was the 28mm f/1.8 UC Hexanon. I miss Panatomic-X and would buy some right away if Kodak made it again. The combination of Panatomic-X and Edwal FG-7 1:15 with plain water gave me very high sharpness, very fine grain and negatives which were easy to print. Alas, Edwal FG-7 is also gone.

 

[tcolgate]

At the end of the day, print quality is a pretty personal choice. I print half frame HP5 at 8x10, and if you aren't getting the magnifying glass out I reckon they look great. I like using Pyro with half frame, it's the one time when I really do think the "grain masking" thing is a big win.

 

[loccdor]

@dynachrome Before today's Pen FV arrival my only serious half frame camera has been the Olympus Pen D, which has a really excellent 32mm f/1.9 lens and simple enough design that even I was able to get it apart to service it. It's an estimate-focus camera but the minimum focus distance corresponds pretty closely to an arm length, which is mighty useful. Super small too. Didn't think I would love it so much.

I'd be comfortable printing with the Pen D to about 20 inches in my workflow. If I'm really careful with film flatness I can get 24 inches out of it. Flatness in the enlarging/digitizing step is a little bit more of an issue than with full frame 35mm. Anti-newton glass does the trick but that's too slow for 75 frame rolls, I save it for the really good shots.

 

[xkaes]

I like using Pyro with half frame, it's the one time when I really do think the "grain masking" thing is a big win.

It's great for all of the smaller formats -- 12x17mm, 110, 10x14mm, Minox, etc.

 

[Paul Howell]

I don't have a pen f, but I can confirm impressive results with TMax 100 on half frame (Pentax 17). I've only made 5x7 prints of them so far but I have no doubt an 8x10 would look excellent.

My guess is that the Pentax 17 has a better, slower and likely sharper with better coating than my 60 year old lens. Olympus made some of the best glass in the day, not only in 1/2 frame but when Olympus moved to 35mm SLR their expertise in 1/2 frame paid off. In the 70s the Air Force field tested the OM 1 along with the Nikon F and Canon F1. The Olympus lens were as good or better than Nikon or Canon, but the body did not hold up to hard use. I think the Air Force kept with Nikon as only the body and motor drives needed to be upgraded. With Olympus and Canon a new system was needed.

 

[dynachrome]

A friend in Japan has the whole Konica EYE collection. I may look for one of those.

 

[Paul Howell]

I think Konica also made a 1/2 frame version of a few of their SLR models, the target was law enforcement and student year book portraits.

 

[thinkbrown]

My guess is that the Pentax 17 has a better, slower and likely sharper with better coating than my 60 year old lens.

Oh almost certainly. The lens in that camera is phenomenal. My point was the resolution of tmax 100 allows for impressive enlargements, ignoring the lens.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

In the day, 60s and 70s there were articles in Pop Photo and Modern Photo by 1/2 frame enthusiasts who claimed that when a tripod, cable release and Pan X film they were able to print 11X14. I dont recall the magazine so unsure of which film and developer that was used. Best guess is if based in the U.S then Plus X....

Since it was the 1960's/1970's, could it have been Panatomic-X? I never compared the two side-by-side, but imagine it would have been a noticeable "jump-up" from Plus-X, since both were traditional films.

Maybe they were just "films," since t-grain hadn't been invented, yet.

 

[xkaes]

I think Konica also made a 1/2 frame version of a few of their SLR models, the target was law enforcement and student year book portraits.

Konica made two versions of the EYE, and FED made FIVE versions in their MICRON line-up. You can compare them all at:

www.subclub.org/shop/halframe.htm

 

[Paul Howell]

Since it was the 1960's/1970's, could it have been Panatomic-X? I never compared the two side-by-side, but imagine it would have been a noticeable "jump-up" from Plus-X, since both were traditional films.

Maybe they were just "films," since t-grain hadn't been invented, yet.

By Pan X I mean Pantatomic X, in the day Leica and other such Modern Photo it was common to use microfiche film to test lens resolution. Most normal lens could out resolve Plus X or Trix, Plus X was about 125 LPM, I think Panatomic X was bit better while TriX was 95" LPM. Microfiche was over 300 LPM. Of course Leica out performed Nikon and other Japaneses SLR lens. When in college we got into a debate over Leica vs Nikon, our PJ professor settled it by saying that a lens that could resolve Plus X was all that needed. Who cared if a lens could resolve 200 LPM if your film was at best 125 LPM while the day to day film was Trix at 95LMP. HC Control and other sold repacked Kodak mircofiche film with a very long contrast developer that could reslove I think up to 800LPM. 35mm photographers were disapoointed becuase not even Leica could reslove 800LPM.

My guess is my Olympus 1/2 frame lens will reslove Tmax 100, mgiht be a little soft around the edges, the big differance will be flare and contrast.

 

[dynachrome]

I think there were actually three EYE models, not including the ones marked Wards. I often think about the small difference in image size between half-frame and APS. I really enjoyed using my Nikon Pronea S. The 20-60 is especially good. With Fuji 800 color print film, the range of the flash was effectively extended. As new APS film went out of production and processing costs remained high, using the APS cameras became less attractive. If someone offered fresh APS black & white film, I would shoot it, remove it from its cartridge and cut the negatives into strips for printing. I would use my 30mm CE Rokkor-X to do the enlarging.

 

[Cholentpot]

One more reason to use full-frame lenses on Pen F cameras. A wider selection of lenses, easier and cheaper to buy, and better performance.

Can you lead me to an affordable way of doing this? I have a F Gothic, happens to be loaded up right now. I have the 38 1.8, 25 f/4, and the 100. The 25mm isn't what I'd call a great lens, it's slow and does the job but nowhere near as nice as the 38. Putting some Nikon lenses on the camera would be nice though.

 

[MattKing]

Can you lead me to an affordable way of doing this? I have a F Gothic, happens to be loaded up right now. I have the 38 1.8, 25 f/4, and the 100. The 25mm isn't what I'd call a great lens, it's slow and does the job but nowhere near as nice as the 38. Putting some Nikon lenses on the camera would be nice though.

Probably the best option would be an OM 24mm f/2.8 lens and the OM lens to Pen body adapters. But it can be difficult to find the adapter.