Interesting. I doubt it will drive prices much higher, as they are already fairly high for the OM glass (mainly since it's so damn good. And some of it is uncommon). Still, at least the nikon kids get to share the OM love now. ;-)
ulrikft2 wrote:
18/3.5 and 100/2 is tempting. But if the 50 1.2 is bad, that is not so tempting.
The OM 50mm f1.2 is one of the better 50mm lenses I have used - especially at f1.2. It is comparable to the Nikon 50mm f1.2 and to the Rokkor 58mm f1.2. Maybe it's possible you had a bad sample to try out.
Got an email back quickly from Leitax saying that they hadn't tried the 100/2 since they don't have one, but I ordered one anyway since he said he'd accept a return if it didn't work out. Stoked to use this on digital...
Here's what David from Leitax said;
"...the only one that cannot use my mount is the 50/1.8 because its mount is made of two pieces, instead of the usual one piece mount you can see at the instructions."
cgiff wrote:
Here's what David from Leitax said;
"...the only one that cannot use my mount is the 50/1.8 because its mount is made of two pieces, instead of the usual one piece mount you can see at the instructions."
Sorry cgiff, my mistake. I didn't know the 40/2 and 28/2.8 are different too. I'm working in the solution for these models now.
pascal03 wrote:
The OM 50mm f1.2 is one of the better 50mm lenses I have used - especially at f1.2. It is comparable to the Nikon 50mm f1.2 and to the Rokkor 58mm f1.2. Maybe it's possible you had a bad sample to try out.
55/1.2 sucks comparing with Rokkor IME. 50/1.2 is another level, really.
What they mean re: 50/1.8 - there were 2 types of mounts in the OM world. The earlier and more common one are the one-piece ones. Some later lenses, on the cheap end of the scale, used a 2-piece mount, like the later 50/1.8. Of all the OM lenses I have had (which is a lot,though not the 40/2) the only one with 2-piece mount was the late 50/1.8. The 40/2 was out early-on, so almost sure most if not all of those have the 1-piece mount. At least the earlier-vintage ones should. All the f/2, f/1.4, and f/1.2 lenses (except 40/2 - not sure, and 100/2 - not sure - I don't have those) are one-piece mount.
Hey, good idea Andrč! You, me, tripod, rokkors, noct, zuiko, sigma, CV 58 1.4... we could make a great normal-lens test in between us (mostly you, but still :P )
I have most the OM 50/1.2, 55/1.2 and Rokkor, among others. the OM 50/1.2 is no slouch - very nice. Well regarded and recommended if you can find a nice one for under $450-500.
I now have the two zuiko 1.2's & rokkor 1.2. From personal experience, I'm very happy with all three. The performance is great from each and really comes down to what mood i'm in - rubber gripped small, or metal gear solid. Both are extremely enjoyable to shoot with for their respective form factors.
This is really great news, and means that I will certainly keep my Nikon bodies and convert most or all of my Zuikos. Looks like a D700 to pair with the 21mm f/3.5 wouldn't be a bad solution
alexandre wrote:
55/1.2 sucks comparing with Rokkor IME. 50/1.2 is another level, really.
+1. I love my 50/1.2, even more so since I got a FC adapter (it was difficult to focus wide open on the DSIII, even with the S screen).
It's cool that Nikon gives you FC without a chip, but how does it do full EXIF without a chip to recognize the lens? Do you enter the focal length manually before you start shooting?
freaklikeme wrote:
It's cool that Nikon gives you FC without a chip, but how does it do full EXIF without a chip to recognize the lens? Do you enter the focal length manually before you start shooting?
Yes, you do, but you won't get the correct aperture in the EXIF.
freaklikeme wrote:
+1. I love my 50/1.2, even more so since I got a FC adapter (it was difficult to focus wide open on the DSIII, even with the S screen).
It's cool that Nikon gives you FC without a chip, but how does it do full EXIF without a chip to recognize the lens? Do you enter the focal length manually before you start shooting?
Focal length and max aperture. Depending on the camera, you can store a number of lenses (9 on the D300) and just select the one you want, or change it if you don't have a particular lens saved. This also enables Matrix metering and improves flash meteirng
You won't get working aperture in EXIF and flash metering may be wonky with the Leitax adapters, since they aren't AI-coupled.
ulrikft2 wrote:
Hey, good idea Andrč! You, me, tripod, rokkors, noct, zuiko, sigma, CV 58 1.4... we could make a great normal-lens test in between us (mostly you, but still :P )
I am back in the land of the living now, so let´s meet up some day soon.
Thanks, Jorgen and Adam. I didn't even realize the D700 had that feature when I owned it. Not that it would've changed my mind about selling it, but it's a nice feature that Canon needs to catch up with.
Metering in general with the chipped adapters is a bit wonky on the Canons. I've become very familiar with my hand-held. If I rely on the in-camera meter, it's always with a little prayer to the gods of photography.
Forgot to mention that one advantage of the OM 1.2 is its size. It's cheap-slow-rangefinder-lens tiny, but is a solid little marvel of engineering. I'd put color rendition on par with the Canon L, but the L manages CA better (by a large margin). Still, it has the distinct advantage of not focus shifting when stopped down, which leads to less out of focus highlights to fringe. Full stops only. Focus, on my copy, has the perfect amount of tension.
(mostly you, but still :P )