OM vs Nikon System

[pierods]

My 2p. IMHO fast lenses are only better if you use them wide open. For me, inexpensive slower lenses and cheap zooms with fast film are just fine...

Very true! I use my 2.0 and 1.4's about 2% of the time.

 

[baachitraka]

Zuiko 28mm f/3.5 is no bad lens. Get one with metal hood. Its great from wide-open and I use mostly @f/8.0 or @f/11.0

If you want solid machines, go with Nikon or Pentax.

 

[Paul Howell]

Very true! I use my 2.0 and 1.4's about 2% of the time.

Until the 80's all the lens made by the manufactures had the same build quality, faster lens were just faster, more glass, few lens made, cost more. When I shot with Nikon my 28 2.8 was built as well as the 2.0. I shot most of the time with the 2.8 and only took the 2.0 for very low light. Even to day I have M42 Pentax glass, fast and standard, most the time I just take the standard glass. S o unless you plan on shooting in very low light I recommend starting with the standard lens and adding fast glass if you really need it. As mentioned by others consider having your gear cleaned and adjusted.

 

[dsmccrac]

Must I utter... "Maitani"

Decades after I became an OLY fanboi, I realized that all these cameras that I loved (the OM1&2, the XA, the Pen, etc) were children of the same industrial designer, Maitani (or at least this is the mythology that Olympus built). This link calling it the 'cult of Olympus' and connecting it to him, more or less sums it up -- http://camarasclassicas.blogspot.ca/2010/09/yoshihisa-maitani-and-cult-of-olympus.html

It is pretty rare where one person puts his stamp on a range of products from a large corporation. This is pretty easy to see his stamp by googling "Olympus camera designer" and trying this with other Japanese brands. Maitani will come up as one of the top links, but I do not see this for the bigger companies. This does not mean that they are superior or inferior, but it does mean that one person likely controlled a fair bit of the esthetic and functional considerations of Oly cameras from that time compared to Canon or Nikon. To me this means that the Oly cameras may have some different things about it (eg shutter speed ring, minimalist viewfinder info) that you either love or you hate. Maitani was a minimalist -- my first OM2 seemed rather feature-poor compared to my friends' Canons and Nikons of the time, but to me this minimalist quality was attractive and still is. It keeps the camera out of my way. So try an Olympus before you buy one. If I had to bet I would think you might have stronger feelings about the Olympus over the Nikons, I am just not sure which feeling it would be.

As a last comment, I feel that the older 1.4 50mm lenses are 'piled on to' a bit excessively. OK, maybe I am just jealous as both my 1.4s have serial numbers <1,000,000, but they seem pretty good to me. I have a couple of 1.8 lenses (of varying ages) and I prefer the 1.4s and generally think they are great. Again, maybe the clouds will part for me if I try a newer one, but I am not waiting for it to happen.

 

[MattKing]

My standard kit - OM 2n or OM 2sp, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0, 85mm f/2.0 fits easily in a tiny camera bag.

My other lenses include a number of 50mm (1.8, 1.4, 3.5 macro) that are very good and a surprisingly good 75mm - 150mm f/4 two touch zoom.

My OM20/OMG bodies are great, cheap backup bodies that are very light but very functional.

And in the past, my OM 1 bodies were very reliable.

The OM ergonomics are quite different from other cameras - really well suited to my strongly left handed needs.

 

[dynachrome]

My only Zuiko 35 is the 35/2.8. It is a decent performer. The 35/2.8 'K' Nikkor and early AI lenses have the 6/6 design and are very sharp. All of the 35/2 Nikkors are very good. You will not get better results with one brand than another. All of the equipment mentioned is capable of good results if it is in good condition and used properly. You get more bang for the buck with Canon FD or Minolta manual focus lenses than with Zuikos or Nikkors. The early Zuikos were not very sturdily built and far fewer of them were made than Nikkors. The Nikkors are now used on digital cameras and many were used professionally and show it. Of the Minolta lenses the 35/1.8s are very expensive as are all of the 85s. The 100/2.5 lenses are all good and now reasonably priced. The 28/3.5 and 2.8 lenses are both good but the 28/2 is not very common and usually expensive. The 50/1.4, 50/1.7 and 50/3.5 (Macro) lenses are all good. I prefer a late 200/3.5 to a 200/4. There are almost too many different 135/2.8 models to choose from. They are all decent with the second version MC being my least favorite. The Canon FD SC 28/2.8 and the 28/2 FD SSC are both excellent. All Canon 35/2 lenses are good but the early ones are discolored. There aren't really any duds in the Canon FD line from 28-200. The early 200/4 FD (without the SSC marking) is prone to flare.

 

[Dali]

-Which 105mm should I get? The Sonnar 105mm f2.5 is legendary, but to me, it seems that this lens might be a bit over-rated because it is a Sonnar and everything. I'm not sure.

Over-rated because it is a Sonnar? What do you mean?

 

[franny]

Well I decided to go Zuiko.

Many small reasons just compounded.

Chasing the sharpest lens is expensive and endless. I figured that every big player makes sharp-enough lenses. I've seen some very good pictures taken from holgas and everyone knows that plastic lenses are not sharp by any means.

I like the size factor, looks, and spirit behind Olympus products (designed by Maitani). The lenses get mixed reviews but so does Nikon (and Minolta, Pentax, etc.).

I'm going to pursue the following lenses first:
28mm f2.0, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f2.0

Then add in a 35mm f2.0 or a 40mm f2.0 and a 100mm f2.0 or 100mm f2.8. I realize that the 40mm/100mm are expensive but I've heard that the 40mm is better than the 35mm and the 100mm f2.0 is one of Zuiko's sharpest.

Any comments on the Zuiko 40mm? I wouldn't pay $500 (what they typically command) but incase I see one for cheap.

 

[franny]

Over-rated because it is a Sonnar? What do you mean?

I mean, everyone speaks so highly of the Sonnar because the bokeh is special (especially with rangefinder 50's) but the Sonnar bokeh doesn't seem so much better than the Planar bokeh, to me. The difference to me seems small. I haven't looked or seen negatives from the 105mm f2.5 so I'm not sure.

 

[Allan Swindles]

I'm an OM user and devotee through and through. Having spent years in the trade, when the first OM-1 non MD model was introduced, it was the camera system for me. I still have it, it's still going strong but as a spectical wearer I did have problems with light entering the viewfinder and affecting the exposure and so my wife uses it now. Not so with the OM-2, 2n versions, which I use regularly now, OTF (metering of the film) has eliminated this problem completely. Over the years I have built up a considerable arsenal of OM equipment because it was light and compact. A well thought out system, no one knew how well thought out, until the introduction of the OM-2. It has progressed, the OM-4Ti was the last model produced. If you can afford one, buy it, but ensure it's in good condition. OM-1's, 1-n's will need new light seals and possibly
2's and 2-n's. Do not buy an OM-4T unless it has been upgraded. The early models eat batteries. If you can stretch to it, buy a mint, exe++,
OM- 4Ti., no if's, no but's, buy it, you'll not be disappointed. Nikon, well they do have the reputation and I cannot deny that they produce excellent equipment, as do Canon and perhaps others, but to me the compactness and the versatility of the OM SYSTEM wins every time. It was only after this system was introduced that other manufacturers started to get their act together but the OM system, IMHO, is still the best SLR SYSTEM ever produced.

 

[Allan Swindles]

franny, don't buy wide aperture lenses unless you REALLY need them. I have a 50mm. f1.4 which I haven't yet used below f2.8.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Buy Leica.

 

[franny]

I have Leica RF with some of their older glass which I'm happy with but I limit myself to normal lenses because shorter and longer lenses are more difficult to frame (and afford!).

A Leica SLR seems natural but I decided against them because I think that the Japanese made better bodies and systems. I held a Leicaflex and I was unimpressed (A Leica RF is a different story). The Leica SLR glass "might" be better than the Japanese glass but I can't justify/afford a suite of lenses. If I only wanted 1-2 focal lengths then I'd seriously consider this route, but this is not the case.

 

[Klainmeister]

franny, don't buy wide aperture lenses unless you REALLY need them. I have a 50mm. f1.4 which I haven't yet used below f2.8.

Except with an SLR you'll get a brighter view in the viewfinder.

Don't buy a Leica. My Pentax MX with the 50mm 1.4 ($30 on craigslist) cannot be discerned from it's $1k buddy.

 

[wblynch]

Franny, I'm happy you have chosen my favorite brand.

It is my favorite for the reasons stated above. My first real camera was an OM-1 bought in 1975 and I still have it today. I have never owned a different brand of 35mm SLR.

Perhaps I have been subliminally attracted due to my own left-handedness? (never thought about that aspect before).

But these days I do not recommend Olympus because there are too many people chasing the same lenses I would like to add. So, yes, I am selfish.

I must warn you, once indoctrinated into our little cult, it is nearly impossible to escape!

 

[Les Sarile]

Keep in mind the OM and Nikon bodies don't handle the same way - the OM shutter speed adjustment is at the front of the body, at the lens mount, while the Nikon has the more traditional shutter speed dial on the top of the camera.

Long before the OM1 was released, the Nikkormats had their shutter speed adjustments on the base of the lens mount. This start with the 1965 Nikon Nikkormat FT to the last FT3 (1977) shown below with the OM1.

 

[Les Sarile]

The OM-2 and OM-4 are useless without the battery.

The OM4 is just like all the other aperture priority auto exposure capable bodies of Nikon - except for the FM3A, as it has 1/60 and B available when battery is exhausted. The Pentax LX and Canon New F1 have a useful range of shutter speeds available when battery is exhausted.

 

[Les Sarile]

The OM4 is pretty rugged -> OM4T/Ti crash test

 

[Dali]

I mean, everyone speaks so highly of the Sonnar because the bokeh is special (especially with rangefinder 50's) but the Sonnar bokeh doesn't seem so much better than the Planar bokeh, to me. The difference to me seems small. I haven't looked or seen negatives from the 105mm f2.5 so I'm not sure.

Ah? I never find the "bokeh" given by my wartime Zeiss 1.5/50 being so special compared to other 50mm lenses so I don't really see what you are talking about. Back to the Nikkor 105mm, are you sure it is a Sonnar?

 

[franny]

Some people think that the Sonnar is magical, I guess you and I aren't one of those people.

The early 105mm f2.5 Nikkors were Sonnar's. I believe the non-ai.

I retract my comment.
-Fast lenses seem to be more susceptible to bad bokeh.
-Fast/long lenses sometimes obliterate the background too much for my liking.

 

[Chan Tran]

Long before the OM1 was released, the Nikkormats had their shutter speed adjustments on the base of the lens mount. This start with the 1965 Nikon Nikkormat FT to the last FT3 (1977) shown below with the OM1.

But Olympus and Nikon (with their Nikkormat) putting the shutter speed dial on the lens mount for different reason. Olympus put the dial there to save room to make the camera smaller. Nikon put it their because with the vertical travelled bladed shutter it's more direct to put it there. The Nikon F, F2 both had horizontal shutter. When Nikon made the FM with the vertical shutter they decided to put the shutter speed dial on top (just for the look) and had to use string and pulley to control the shutter. They were afraid that it would not last but the FM proved that it last quite well.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Many things to consider, but i'm wondering..

does anyone have a size comparison between the zuiko and nikon lenses? I'm interested in a wide variety so whichever ones you got will do. I can probably fill in the rest. I'm in particularly interested in the two 28mm f2.0's. This focal length I care about the most.

Here are two 28mm f2s. One on a om4t the other on the f3hp. The nikkor has the correct hn1 hood. The olympus has a 49-52mm adapter and cannot use the original hoods. I don't find flare to be a problem.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I'm going to come out and say it: I tend to regret selling my Nikon FE and 50mm Nikkor. Every single time I did it. I think I'm up to three times now. Reason? That bloody 50mm lens was better than any other lens I've ever come across. I loved it. The FE is a relatively small but very well built body (aka, dropped on the pavement and the Nikon won with just a small dent) and that lens? Yeah. I want it back. May buy another one at some point, but I'm sticking to medium and large format for now.

 

[kanzlr]

Do not buy an OM-4T unless it has been upgraded. The early models eat batteries. If you can stretch to it, buy a mint, exe++,
OM- 4Ti.

The OM-4 is the one with high battery consumption.
OM-4T and OM-4Ti are the same cameras, both with the upgraded electronics. Ti = Europe, T = US

 

[E. von Hoegh]

(franny wrote)...The Sonnar 105mm f2.5 is legendary, but to me, it seems that this lens might be a bit over-rated because it is a Sonnar and everything. I'm not sure.

It isn't overrated, it's one of the best lenses ever made for 35mm cameras. The later version is a Gauss type, and it isn't overrated either. Get one or the other and use it, then you'll have an opinion.