Tarocco wrote:
More Zuiko shots! All on a Canon 6D. Definitely jealous of Dan's 20 f/2 macro - I think it would be a great lightweight option for high mag field macro shots, especially paired with the Olympus telescoping extension tubes. Oly sure had the best macro gear back in the day.
I'm trying to reduce the size of equipment, due to which I have been trying to find smaller alternative for Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 ZE. I most likely end up to getting Leica-M 135APO, but wanted to test is f/3.5 too slow for me. I decided to test this with Olympus lens; it's pretty light weight and small size. This was most likely first time I ever shoot with this lens outdoors. I got this lens from 2 lens deal and the other lens was what I wanted
For such small and cheap lens it gives pretty nice results. On focus plane it needs to be closed down to f/8 to get short edges sharp and f/11 to get corners usable (they seem not to get really sharp). Things on focus plane are OK, quite little aberrations and contrast is OKish. Contrast and colors are quite muted if one is used to Zeiss drawing style.
The boke has very strong tendency to add magenta in front of focus plane and green behind focus plane - I tried to remove it in post processing, but as this is on boke, it can't be really removed (the Chromatic Aberration removal tools perform very well on focus plane). Otherwise boke is quite good after closing lens to f/5.6 - wide open the boke highlights tend to generate very sharp edges.
Boke color behaviour, weakish contrast and lacking performance before f/5.6-8 makes this lens not suitable for my use, as my photos usually contain boke. But for people shooting landscapes etc. where boke color errors don't matter, this is very good alternative for 135mm focal length, size is very nice and usually these cost next to nothing.
Olympus OM E.Zuiko 1:3.5 f=135mm @ f/5.6, HDR(1/60s,1/250s,1000s), A7R @ ISO 125
Olympus OM E.Zuiko 1:3.5 f=135mm @ f/5.6, HDR(1/30s,1/125s,1/500s), A7R @ ISO 125
Olympus OM E.Zuiko 1:3.5 f=135mm @ f/5.6, 1/80s, A7R @ ISO 125
Olympus OM E.Zuiko 1:3.5 f=135mm @ f/5.6, HDR(1/125s,1/500s,1/2000s), A7R @ ISO 125
Olympus OM E.Zuiko 1:3.5 f=135mm @ f/8.0, 1/200s, A7R @ ISO 160
dthrog00 wrote:
135mm f/3.5 is the cheap one -- I think it was part of the typical lens family 28 f/3.5, 50 f/1.8, 135 f/3.5.
I think I got the 135 with 50mm f/1.8 - I really did not want it but the seller wanted to get rid off both.
dthrog00 wrote:
I doubt much of the OM glass would be competitive with your modern Zeiss lens collection.
I'll try to appreciate all kind of rendering styles. From OM-lenses I have always admired photos from the fast f/2 OM macros (50mm and 90mm). Sure also they have lower contrast and less bold colors than Zeiss. If they would not be so damn expensive I would get them just for the rendering style - I really like the way how their transition from DOF to boke happens.
At some point I tried to build cheap and good quality OM-trio. I wanted slow&light&small 24, 50 and 100. I managed to get the 24mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.8, but 100mm f/2.8 was hard to find and I gave up. I have enjoyed 24mm alot and 50/1.8 is OK (not great) - some 24mm photos:
Olympus OM H.Zuiko 1:2.8 f=24mm @ f/11
Olympus OM H.Zuiko 1:2.8 f=24mm @ f/2.8
Olympus OM H.Zuiko 1:2.8 f=24mm @ f/11
Close focus boke is horrible (quality, not quantity - can't expect much quantity from 24mm), but to my surprise focal plane is OK even there is no floating element - Olympus OM H.Zuiko 1:2.8 f=24mm @ f/11
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
I think I got the 135 with 50mm f/1.8 - I really did not want it but the seller wanted to get rid off both.
I'll try to appreciate all kind of rendering styles. From OM-lenses I have always admired photos from the fast f/2 OM macros (50mm and 90mm). Sure also they have lower contrast and less bold colors than Zeiss. If they would not be so damn expensive I would get them just for the rendering style - I really like the way how their transition from DOF to boke happens.
At some point I tried to build cheap and good quality OM-trio. I wanted slow&light&small 24, 50 and 100. I managed to get the 24mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.8, but 100mm f/2.8 was hard to find and I gave up. I have enjoyed 24mm alot and 50/1.8 is OK (not great) - some 24mm photos:
Close focus boke is horrible (quality, not quantity - can't expect much quantity from 24mm), but to my surprise focal plane is OK even there is no floating element - Olympus OM H.Zuiko 1:2.8 f=24mm @ f/11
I think that you may find OM 50/1.4 better than 50/1.8 Samuli.It is sharper,crisper and gets sharp across the frame quicker.Also 85/2.0 "MC" and "Japan" have slightly more interesting IQ compared to 100/2.8 at wider apertures.
As for 135mm Zuikos - f3,5 and f2,8 look about the same at f5.6.
My copy wouldn't be very collectable! No original cap or case, for one. I just got it a few weeks ago.
I've been lugging a 2700g Nikon 200mm f/2 AI-S around for a few years waiting for a reasonably priced copy of this little 1900g lightweight to appear somewhere online. Two lbs lighter and yet it still has better contrast and resolution wide open. The Nikon will be up for sale soon.
Now I just need to put a roll of film through my OM-2...
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
t some point I tried to build cheap and good quality OM-trio. I wanted slow&light&small 24, 50 and 100. I managed to get the 24mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.8, but 100mm f/2.8 was hard to find and I gave up. I have enjoyed 24mm alot and 50/1.8 is OK (not great) - some 24mm photos:
Samuli
The OM 50/1.8 "Made in Japan" is better than the previous versions. The 50/1.4 with serial # > 1,100,000 is preferred by most for that speed. If speed isn't important, the 50/3.5 macro is excellent. The 85/2 is a sweet little lens that can sometimes be found for a good price, especially the older version, which is still a good performer.
