There is an across-the-board problem with all classic lenses which this one seems to have as well; a 'cult-like' following of fans who exaggerate the actual quality (the Helios being a prime example of this phenomenon). You have given an honest and objective review, and I agree with the points you've made - especially about what we expect from old lenses. I am quite happy to keep and use my Super Takumar 1.4, despite having other fairly good old lenses (including a Helios).
While I do agree with you, I will say that the Helios (when you find a good copy) has a rendition and lens character that is fairly unique. More often than not, I'll bring it to a portrait shoot and shoot it on an M42 body alongside whichever other setup I'm using.
My friend, it’s not the equipment that makes good photos, it’s the photographer. These reviews… They’re hopeless. I watch them because maybe I’ll learn something about the technical aspects inside the lens, but otherwise, it is a lost of time.
Aperture ring placement makes much more sense if you take into account the original Olympus OM bodies these lenses were designed for. Olympus OM-1 to OM-4 have the shutter speed dial in the form of a ring placed directly behind the lens mount akin to an aperture ring itself. This makes setting the aperture and shutter speed a breeze as you can do it with one hand. There's not a day passes that I wish that my Fuji body had the same style of shutter speed dial 🙃 And regarding the aperture ring click - it get's much better if you reapply the grease.
All Vintage Lenses were developed to be used with Film, not Digital... As to say, today's modern Lenses are designed to be used with specific type of Sensors, so were Lenses pre Digital Era, to work better with certain brands of Film - Of course, some were Better than others, but it all depended on Price, like it is today!.. It's a detail one should keep in mind when buying Vintage Lenses!
There's a good reason that Zuiko lenses and the associated OM bodies have a strong fanbase: Maitani completely nailed the philosophy behind the system, and in my opinion no other company better optimises simultaneously for ergonomics, size, weight, technical performance and character (especially colours). OM bodies and Zuiko lenses really do do it all well I'll also add that having used a lot of the Zuikos, I would say that perhaps more than some other lenses, they really shine on film, where the film itself adds some of the character and the sharpness and contrast of the Zuiko lenses is appreciated. At the same time, they do still retain a vintage look, especially to the bokeh, something that using a modern lens on a film body doesn't give you (although modern lenses also have major advantages, including stabilisation and yes, autofocus: even after years of practice, I still miss focus from time to time!) The fabrication and feel is also top notch, and some of the lenses are truly marvels of engineering that are fairly unique, even today, especially given their generally diminutive size. In the end, taking interesting photos depends on all of the above factors, so as a film shooter, I know I'll be an Olympus fan for as long as I'm taking photos.
I never got the hype behind the 1.4 either and so, against my better judgement, I went ahead and bought one. The 1.4 is a great lens for its age and a decent one even today, but I much prefer the Zuiko 1.8. I own a lot, maybe too many 50s and the 1.8 Zuiko is by far my favourite. It's ever so slightly smaller and lighter than the 1.4, it's sharper when both lenses are wide open, though the 1.4 easily trumps the 1.8 when stopped down at f2 and given that these old Zuikos use full aperture stops, the next stop for the 1.8 is 2.8. There was a time when one could get the 1.8 at around 10 Euros and that and the great image quality it outputs made it a no-brainer for banging around your neck while out shooting. At one time I had three copies on my shelf for no other reason than because they were that cheap. Nowadays, the 1.8 is more expensive and the 1.4 is too expensive. My advice, go for the 1.8
This review has saved me from hunting down a copy of this lens after all the positive reviews. I´m looking for the perfect imperfection in my fast 50´s. This was a great perspective on this lens. Thanks.
Thanks for demonstrating this lens. We have similar tastes in old vintage lenses, so much so that if I see anything you recommend at a good price I snap it up. The other day I had my Auto Takumar 35mm f/2.3 out which I bought on your recommendation. I thank you even time I look through my viewfinder and see the world projected by that lens. Character is king!
This lense is my absolute favorite on my Olympus OM1 film camera (which is completely mechanic, no electronics). It is as a sharp as you can get on ISo 100 film emulsions, the color it renders on film is just beautiful and with its super small size it is well suited for hiking. Do I use it on my digital Fuji Xts? No! ...for exactly the reasons you pointed out here. THX for this fantastic breakdown.
It comes down to personal taste and use. The Olympus 50mm f1.4 is my favourite lens for videos of people, out of all of the many 50mm lenses which I've tried. Olympus colours are delicate and the rendering is beautiful. They are modern enough to look natural and accurate in the digital era, yet full of character. On the other hand, I had a Pancolar and hated it, I found the colours inaccurate and exaggerated and I sold it. I have a Helios 58mm but don't really like it, although it's sharp. Out of focus highlights very rarely appear in my photos because I don't find them visually interesting. If they did appear it would mean that I hadn't composed a photograph properly, and the last thing I would want in any case would be for them to draw attention to themselves. I want a lens to support the photograph, not to introduce its own quirks. I would make an exception for vintage Konica lenses, which have their own perspective on the world, strong colours and unique rendering, but they are not for every situation. I think you posted a video in praise of the Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8, which is undeniably sharp as well as excellent value. You disliked the 57mm f1.4; I respect the 40mm but love the 57mm, mainly as a short telephoto for portraiture. The criticism you levelled at the Olympus, I would be more inclined to throw at the manual West German Zeiss lenses. I loved them in the film era (as I did Olympus cameras and lenses), they were really good for the time. However, they were sharp and accurate but not very characterful, so I'd rather use a modern autofocus lens for digital photography. (The same applies to old Leica lenses on digital cameras too, come to think of it). It doesn't mean that I am right, only that I am right for my preferences, needs and uses. As are you for yours. And that's as it should be.
What I like the most about my Zuiko lenses is their punchy colors. I took them to sunny Malaga/ Spain w. My Fujifilm X-E4 set up w. the Ektar 100 Film Simulation. The results are stunning. Bokeh can be busy at times but bokeh is not the most important thing to me. Back in the days there wasn't much fuzz about bokeh. It was about having enough head room in difficult lighting situations
Thanks for great video. I've tried around 50 copies of oem manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Yashica, Konica, Rollei) 50mm F1.4 lenses of that era. IMO the lenses of the same era are nearly identical. So if you happy with the lens you have don't believe the hype that x 50mm F1.4 is much better.
I’ve taken many photos with this lens in both film and digital formats. I don’t think it has the character of the Takumar lenses but it is still my most used lens. This is because I prefer the ergonomics and the image quality I think is superior of the other fast lenses I’ve used from the film era. I think it does better on film than digital.
I can't but agree, I love the special qualities of the lenses you describe as excentric, it may be bubbles, swirls, or whatever but if you just want needlepoint sharpness, I just could pick up almost any modern lens, even a modern zoom today is sharper than many vintage lens even towards the edges. But for that special optical magic, I need the old vintage lenses for all their faults and traits that just make them so lovely.
I always enjoy your reviews of old lenses, because I enjoy using old manual focus lenses. For MFT cameras the old Olympus lenses have the advantage of being smaller and lighter than many of the vintage lenses of similar quality. When I use them on digital cameras I program a button next to the shutter button to punch in (magnify) the spot I want to be in sharp focus, make a final focus adjustment, and snap the shutter. This only takes a fraction of a second, and allows my old eyes to take sharp photos. When I trained as a photographer there were no auto focus cameras and many of the professional cameras I used did not even have built in light meters. 35 millimeter was the smallest film format professionals used unless you were a spy or an avant-garde 16mm film maker. Auto focus lenses have their place, and software that corrects their optical flaws in camera, but they miss focus too, so I often set the camera to Auto -MF when the lens allows it.
Fantastic breakdown, and I agree, I use vintage lenses for their character and imperfections, but when I have to get the shot, I always use my AF lenses.
A possible reason for there appearing to be quite a few of these lenses for sale with fungus is that they are not that easy to disassemble. This is partly due to the design and partly because Olympus used thread locker on the inner components on some of them making them a real cow to get apart. For this reason and because fungus often etches the coatings it is probably best to avoid grubby examples like the plague. Another issue I have come across is balsam separation. This is more likely due to people getting them hot from leaving them in cars and so on, than any error on Olympus' part, however.
This is the lens I use against all other lenses to judge sharpness and color rendering. Beats all the Helios, Jupiter, Takumar, Cosina and others I've owned. Front aperture is the most logical placement, actually.
I've used this lens since 2017 and from day 1 I knew not to use f1.4 because it softens the overall image. Click it up to f2 and you're good to go. Never bring my camera without this lens in the bag. It's brilliant.
I think you should go back and check those reviews. A friend who was in Japan bought me a 1st series OM-1 with this 50mm f1.4. I had been researching cameras for years and the -> f1.8
Many thanks for this information. I suppose I was referring more to reviews from enthusiastic owners. As we all know sharpness is only one aspect of what makes a good and popular lens. Every week, I think "I'm going to do a video on my sharpest fast fifties wide open, from f1.2 lenses up, and show how good some of the f1.8 to f2 lenses I own are". But I've not done one....maybe one day...
This is the first time I've come across someone who mentioned lpm. I did a quick search and it revealed it stands for lines per millimetre. What standard is this and was it used in the days of film photography?
I often have that thought when I use my humble Nikon nifty fifty f/1.8 AFS - every one is in focus, crispy sharp and nice contrast. It only cost £110 used and it performs better than many expensive lenses.
Had that lens for a moment about 10 years ago. Liked the tiny footprint, but didn't like the bokeh as much as some other bright fifties (still in love with the Contax Zeiss 50/1.4). Replaced that Zuiko with the 55/1.2 which has a very unique strange "warp-like" bokeh, kinda like the ridiculously expensive Zeiss Pancolar 55/1.4.
Interesting. Thanks for mentioning this lens. A lot of those 55 mm Pancolars are not worth the asking price, especially considering the fact that most of them are damaged. It would likely be cheaper to take a trip out there and coke home with a suitcase full of those lenses found cheaply at their thrift stores and fleamarkets where the sellers often find them. I think at the asking price they go for, you would be better off buying the 75mm F/1.5 Biotar. It would have better performance and swirly boke as you described as warping.
I had that lens on a Pentacon Super, and I think it is vastly overrated, I much prefer the later Jena 50 f1.4, that is, if one must have a f1.4 lens. If not, then the f2 Pancolar is the best of the bunch, in my experience, not to mention that it is only a little over half the depth of the others.
@@petersnow389 Hey, would you mind elborating a bit on why you feel the 50mm F/1.4 is better than the 55mm F/1.4? Also why do you feel the F/2 is the best of the bunch? You skipped the 50mm F/1.8 why is that?
C'mon Simon. Missing a man. focus shot is not the fault of the lens. I got two or three of them 1,4 lenses among many other OM. Love their size and punchy colours a lot. Your cognitions make sense although I can't exactly remember when it was the last time I used this lens. Maybe that speaks for itself. I started to lean more towards small Leitz and Voigtländer lenses. However I think I will put this lens on my camera tomorrow and give it a whirl. Thanks for sharing your review. Always interesting.
I was intrigued at the title of this lens review. I too had been tempted to dip into the Zuiko pond. Back in the film days, it was mostly Pentax, Minolta and Olympus. Nikon was out of reach. An excellent and well-balanced appraisal. More importantly, highlighting a discussion that vintage lens enthusiasts often mull over. In the beginning there are so many lenses to choose from. After a while you realise that the most appealing images tend to be from your quirkiest lenses. Of course depending on your style and subject choice. Sometimes your sharpest vintage lens is the right choice. Seems that the Zuiko 50mm f1.4 falls somewhere in between. I have a number of lenses in this same category. So thanks for saving me some money. Not something you have done previously.
You need to try one of these. They are awesome. Olympus OM-System G.Zuiko Auto-S 55mm f1.2 1974 SN 105050. Radioactive 3389 CPM {I paid: $315: 6-2022} This lens is special. It is an Art Lens. It is not for perfect photos. It is for really interesting photos. The Sony A7 has focus peaking. I can do better with just the x 10 magnification button.
Thank you for great Chanel , in general do you recommend printing pictures taking with an older lenses, what's look beautiful in screen look as good in printing?
Yes, absolutely. Up to a certain size (say, an internal wall poster size). After that, it depends on the quality of the rendering from the lens. My wife kindly had an A4 book printed of my Flickr Explore photos and they look superb and very beautiful. (Not the compositions....the quality of the printing!)
I have one of these (came with a bulk purchase) lenses and your assessment if fair. I find it a little soft wide open, but that can give a dreamy effect if that is your thing. I have not tested it for bokeh balls, but expect you're right on. Nice review.
Simon, Many people buy these old lenses because they have the price point they want. They do not have the money for a multi hundred dollar fast digital autofocus lens. They get tuned in to manual focus and using the camera aids or zone focusing makes it generally work out for them. They don't need autofocus. If they get bad shots they put up with it or do it again. At least its better than film where the result is not seen until you are home or later and you only get 36 shots. With digital once you have the gear you get as many as you want at no additional charge. And then blurred backgrounds is a very personal thing. Not everyone likes the cats eyes or circles that seem to haunt RUclips. Myself I far prefer a background that's smooth but shows what it is. And any one who actually used these older manual lenses in the early second half of last century knows that none of them were brilliant wide open. The fast aperture was to enable lower light shooting rather than bokeh which was never mentioned in those days. Not forgetting faster lenses were because film ASA was under 200, and mostly double digits and B&W under 400 normally
The soligor Red P lens 35 f2 , 28 f2 135 f2 , 200 f2 and 55 f2.8 macro . Have some the absolute best colors of any vintage lens I have ever tried. I own 3 of the 5 I mentioned. I really feel you would enjoy them and would love to see a video . There is just not much out there on them
I use mine on an OM1. Your review is interesting and sound for digital camera use, an older single coated G.Zuiko version might give slightly different results.
Many thanks. Yes, I wondered about the older versions. I tend to prefer lesser coated old lenses, as they can capture nice "light" and more painterly images, when the contrasts are slightly washed out.
100% agree is to NORMAL for manual focusing and missing shots. i can take 50mm f2 sigma is small and vintage feel but with good AF...i searching something MORE in vintage lensel. THX 4 this
Thanks! Reasonable explanations. I have an f/1.8 or is it an f/2.0 ...? (old) OM Zuiko. Fungus or jam of the aperture blades is the prob in most cases ... that’s true ... the unfortunate lash or play maybe slackness when closing the aperture may result from a clean-up ...?
I used to shoot a lot of tranparancies for picture libraries using an OM4 with a Zuiko 50mm f1.4. I used to think they were very sharp until I switched, first to a Rollei 3003 with a Zeiss 50mm f1.7, and then a Contax RTS with a Zeiss 50mm f1.7. The Zuiko is good but not in the league of the Zeiss lenses.
You can get autofocus adapters. I have the Fotodiox Pronto for my OM lenses (I believe it is a copy of the Techart AF adapter) and the new one is supposed to have eye-AF (but I don't often use my OM lenses for portraits). You need an additional OM to Leica M-mount adapter to go between the lens and AF adapter, but it works well. Although intended for shorter lenses, it can be used with telephotos if you do an approximate manual focus and let the adapter do the rest (the focus limit on the adapter is not enough for longer lenses).
Try the Olympus 50mm f1.2. It has a soft glow at f1.2 with useable sharpness and character bokeh and gets very sharp at f2. Don’t bother trying to shoot anything moving at f1.2, however.
I rate mine as one of if not the best when it comes to sharpness even out to the very edges. I still don't use it as much as i should for similar reasons such as having more eccentric ones. Missing focus can easily happen because the lens was new to you. Some lenses are hard to nail the focus until you get used to them.
Simon was looking to find fault with the lens. Essentially what he is saying is it’s technically superb and better than most of his vintage glass and a wide range of scenarios.
Canon Nikon Pentax Olympus Konica made very fine lenses and wouldn't hesitate to use any of them. The companies were manufacturing the best lenses they can manufacture. They were excellent but not excellent enough. Now I've had some third-party lenses that use absolutely cheap glass. The defects would show in the prints.
The Olympus 50/1.4 was my first Lens for my first camera, OM1, 45 years ago. Now, I still love the old OM lenses and have collected many of them except the 50/1.4. I have never satisfied with this lens as it did not deliver any sharp pictures in my past experience. Even the two versions of OM 50/1.2 lens are better.
This lens is the closest "modern look" vintage lenses I own or have ever used. I have one of these lenses and never use it, I paid about $30 dollars for it so I keep it. I think its construction inside and out is beautiful. But I find it too good for "the vintage look" and not as good as even my cheapest AF 50 such as the Sony FE 50mm f1.8 or my Canon EF 50 f1.8 STM. My favorite 50mm with AF is the SIgma 50mm f1.4 ART for Canon (which I use on my Sony as well). Personally for a vintage lens, I want crazy bokeh. Either explosive or soapy, not a smooth look like modern lenses.
On the opposite end of lenses that fail to have uniqueness, would be lenses that are too wild - that have more character than one would normally want. Hypothetically, such a lens as mentioned above would be more controlled on an APSC camera, I would love to know if there are any lenses that's character might work for an APSC sensor.
Interesting question. Lenses that are strong at the centre but very weak towards the edges (on FF) can be good on APS-C sensors. Wider angle lenses, for example. One wider angle lens that produces a lot of character, but on APS-C acts more like a fast fifty is the Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Lydith 30mm f3.5.
@@Simonsutak Had a look at that, I'm more into interesting bokeh than lens flair. Or should I be looking for the non-reproduction? I think it's been made a few times.
I have used zuiko 50mm f/1.8 , 135mm and 200mm then sold them all. Their looks are like modern lenses that's why i sold them. I'd rather less contrasty lenses.
Thanks for saying what I've always thought about concerning most of the RUclips vintage lens videos and they're conclusions. at some point, 'vintage' lenses can be pointless especially since we have modern manual lenses to choose from. As for the f1.2 lenses? I'm being selfish, but I hope you get the 50mm f1.2 and the 55mm f1.2 lenses to compare to each other. I own the 55mm f1.2 and always find myself wondering about the 50mm f1.2 and whether I should bother.
Hey, TBH, I think you'll prefer your 55mm F/1.2 better. That extra 5mm will produce better spherical highlights due to the compression of the longer focal length. 58mm lenses are also rather nice.
@princeharbinger Thanks for the insight. I have indeed read about the 55mm having the more attractive bokeh compared to it's sibling, but since I've never seen the tradeoff in sharpness for myself, I was curious and thought I'd ask!
@seoulrydr No problem. If I ever heard anyone say vintage lenses are pointless, I'd unsubscribe to them. While there are modern MF lenses, most of them are made by Chinese manufacturers. Only a select few are better than vintage lenses, and that would be for me at least the UWA and WA lenses. Not so much for portraiture for me as I prefer the look of vintage lenses and corner performance is irrelevant in portraiture, unlike landscape and astrophotography, for example. The thing with any modern lens is this. They don't replicate the look of vintage lenses as far as the character of the spherical highlights goes. The handling and build quality is also vastly different. Modern, for the most part, tends to be sterile and soulless. Everything is overly corrected, flat and boring, to say the least. It's a subjective personal preference for the user and their use case scenario. I wouldn't personally use a vintage lens for a wedding, at least not for the entire duration. But when I think about it, the photographers in the film days got by with it well. The thing is, now people have smartphones where they can take a photo instantly, and the client isn't going to want to watch you fiddle around with the focus ring throughout the day. They are mostly impatient and want the photos taken quickly. However, when you are doing a shoot with a paid model, you can take your time. If you are doing it just for fun, than none of this really will apply to you. Have at it to your hearts content. As for sharpness, it varies but I will say this out of all the 50-55mm F/1.2 lenses that I've tested wide open I've never been overly impressed with the acuity until stopping down a bit and some lenses actually perform better with their spherical highlights upon stopping down. There's a few people out there that will BS about the quality of a lens, and I'm not one of them. If anything, just pick some up on Ebay and try them out. Make sure the seller has a return policy, and if you are not happy with the performance, simply send it back for a refund.
I have both, and the 50mm f1.2 is an outstanding lens. It gives a magical, dreamy look wide open (like the 55mm f1.2) while still being reasonably sharp (unlike the 55mm f1.2). Then stopped down it's very sharp and contrasty, competing even with the legendary 50mm f2 macro. The bokeh is certainly less wild, so depending what your after, you might like it more or less. It also has the cat's eyes like the f1.4, although with less outlining. I wouldn't say it's worth forking out the high asking price for if you already have the 55, but I like it more because it feels like it can do anything: dreamy magic at f1.2 and then contrasty sharpness with nice bokeh from f2 upwards. It's also somewhat smaller and lighter, although not much.
I'll take up the challenge. Some rare and/or expensive old lenses I love: Tomioka Auto Revuenon 55mm f1.2 (for its eccentric bokeh wide open); Takumar 58mm f2.4 (ditto, and its rare Heliar design); Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm f2 (cheaper than the Pancolar f1.8, but swirlier); Helios 77M-4 (stopped down a little it's better than the 44-2); Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm f2.8 (because it feels like you're using a legendary lens); and competing with the Olympus, the 8 element Super-Takumar 50mm f1.4....plus the Macro-Takumar 50mm f4, my first macro lens. Plus many others around f1.8! I'm currently using a Carl Zeiss Ultron 50mm f1.8, with its unusual concave front element. I'm a proud owner of that lens. I enjoy all my radioactive lenses...carefully. How about yours?
You should definitely try the Techart LM-EA9 autofocus adapter. It helps old lens to achieve autofocus with decent speed and accuracy, and with that I took many photo that would be otherwise impossible to take with a manual, old lens.
since this contraption only moves entire lend back and forth it is good only for very old lenses not longer than 50mm. if we talk about later "golden era" primes of high quality they are mostly contain some sort of floating elements which activated only when you use focusing ring. with such lenses and this adapter image quality will suffer depending on focusing distance.
You can use the Techart in conjuction with the floating element, just turn the focus ring to somewhere roughly resembles close distance, press AF button and the adapter will "guide" the lens to the focus point. No need to always set the lens to infinity. @@vasyapupken
I like old lens and have a decent collection of primes and tele’s some are even hazy. It’s like you say all about the character of the lens. I shoot mostly on OMD and have a em5 mk1 and a em1 mk3. I also have a few 85mm f2 that I use on a Canon 6D that makes stunning portraits. Especially in natural/low light. At the end of the day if I could only have one body and lens. It would be the em1 mk3 and my 12-40 f2 pro. Mind you I’m more of an outdoor enthusiast and some Astro. I will do family/friends portraits and an occasional wedding.
I never used or owned the Zuiko 50 f1.4 lens, I do own a Zuiko 55mm f1.2 and it is a fantastic lens with many quirky characteristics...I own many versions of the Zuiko 50mm f 1.8 lenses and prefer the early ones for B&W photography. Worse Zuiko OM lens IMO is the 35mm f2.8 lens, or maybe it is just my specimen.
I have this lens (same late version). Its greatest quality is IMO as a landscape lens: it’s very sharp at infinity from corner to corner already at f/4 (on a 42+ mp camera). For close subjects however, the lens is rather soft at wide apertures (f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8). Wide open, the famous Tomioka 55mm f/1.4 (sold under different brand names such as Chinon, Revuenon etc) is quite a bit sharper when focusing at a close subject. The Mamiya EF 50/1.4 is even way, way sharper in this regard, and is very good at infinity as well stopped down. The question is: why such a fast lens, when it’s particular quality is landscapes (@infinity). I would recommend the Minolta MD 50/2 as a landscape lens instead; it is equally sharp, be it one stop later than the Zuiko, but has a few other advantages (better flare resistance, lighter weight, better CA control, much cheaper).
This Mamiya EF 50mm F/1.4 doesn't appear to exist on eBay. I'm guessing you meant the CS? I was always under the impression that slower lenses were meant for landscape while faster lenses could be used for landscape but were more desirable and intended for portraiture. Thanks for the Minolta recommendation. I'll look into it. I currently own the Minolta MD 50mm F/1.4. I prefer its rendering and color better than my copy of the Super Takumar 50mm F/1.4 8 element version. However, the build quality is superb and more desirable for me personally with the Takumar.
I've several OMs including a 50/1.4 but they never really got me and like my Canon FDn lenses they get hardly used, instead I grab a few old FLs, Fujicas or some Russian lenses. There is a difference between just a manual lens like the OM, FDn etc and a vintage lens.
Interesting review - I dont understand why you only talk about using it on digital. Maybe you dont shoot film or have no interest in it (which is quite ok)!? IMO this lens is not just good but a great lens on film. Ive heard similar statements on Leica lenses - just amazing on film not that great on digital. My point being if used for what it was made for this lens is a great little performer at a very reasonable price :-)
A very good point, and I really need to say at the start of these videos that I'm only going to comment on the lens's performance on digital cameras. One of my favourite lenses on film was a 24mm f3.5 prime, but on digital it's not nearly as good as even a modern zoom kit lens. Regarding Leica, I've been using an old Leitz Elmar 5cm f3.5, and I've just reviewed the Summicron-R 50mm f2, and I very enjoyed both lenses on digital!
I had one, serial number below 1 million. It had glow even at f2. Did not like it at all. Also tried 50mm 1.7, did not like either. Sure I did not have more expensive Zuikos, but among several Zuikos I had, only 28 f2.8 was nice imho.
Yes, I like the Tomioka made 55mm f1.4 lenses (I've got the Mamiya/Sekor branded one). I've recently been using a very similar flat rear element 55mm f1.4 lens, that is not radioactive - the Cosina Cosinon 55mm f1.4, and it's full of character too.
@Simonsutak OH wow, that means I have had that lens all along and didn't realize it. Thank you for saving me some money. I love the way the black and silver version of the Mamiya 55mm F/1.4 version looks. It's a beautiful lens, and the rendering of the spherical highlights is nothing short of beautiful.
I have Autorevuenon 55mm f1.4 (Tomioka) and tested against all other 50 mm lenses (Pentax, Pancolar Zebra, Konica, Pentacon, Helios) and it is the sharpest lens of all!! Not testing against SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 and 55mm f1.8, great lenses too, which I bougt few months ago. I was always astonished with images made with Auto Rikenon f1.4 (sharpness, character and colors) and I love it so much despite that I don't have it. Maybe it will be the next purchase.
@ZOly62 The lens you want to get is fairly cheap, and it is the same as the Mamiya. Although, for some reason, the lens you mentioned has a slightly different color in its optics. It appears ember in color, while the mamiya is the typical yellow color due to the thorium doped inside. I'm not saying that the Auto Rikenon doesn't have thorium. I'm sure that it does it just appears that they might have used a different coating for at least the front and rear element. Personally, I think the silver and black version is the best-looking version. Which would be the Mamiya branded version. If only if they would have thought to use a scalped focusing ring, it would have been superb.
nr 1 is denmark LOL i got this lens and love,, i dont get that its too good , next to tge russians and taku and more... i love the oly om serie.. i recommend both the 100 mm 2.8 and 50 1.8 and the 28 mm too
You think so? I find my copy to look rather busy. I guess it depends on the distance you are to the subject. I just tested it the other day for decenterment and it didn't do so well in the corners. Even though corners are irrelevant for portraiture. Think I might pickup the A version and see if it's a well centered copy.
Two observations after watching your video; 1. You state you are looking for a vintage look from your lens, yet you chose the most modern version of the lens. If you want a more eccentric or dated rendering,, try choosing an OLDER lens. Not the latest. 2, The picture of your daughter, in the hat you used as you example of poor focus. Well, there was NO ACTION in the shot. She was just standing there waiting for you to take her picture. YOU didn't bother to accurately focus your lens on the subject. You stated you wanted the camera to focus the lens for you. That comes across to me that you need to AVOID auto-focus and spend more time focusing your pictures yourself!
Many thanks for your comments, much appreciated. Especially about trying the older version. On point 2, I agree with you. It's not true to say I can't track people playing tennis with a manual focus lens. I can. It's just that I prefer to use my Sony AF tracking and digital lens these days. So there's a downside (for me at least) to using a MF lens, even a great MF lens.
If what you're saying is stop buying more and more old lenses and concentrate on compositional skills, then yes, you're probably right. That's a good message for anyone. If you're saying I need to work on my focusing and exposure setting skills...well it's too late. I've used manual focus lens and manual settings for over 40 years. I much prefer auto-focus lenses/cameras (and even iPhones) in some situations. And I only showed over-exposed images to demonstrate how my digital camera's auto-metering system responded to this particular lens in some types of light.
@@Simonsutak I admit the dig on manual focusing rubbed me the wrong way.. As far as doing something for 40 years.. Just because you have been at it a while, dosnt mean your any good at it. The fact is manual focusing is skill that requires constant practice to maintain. Your love of autofocus has made you dependant on it. When was the last time you went out and practiced focusing on people walking towards you and away? Moving cars...animals. Focus can be argued that it is the is the single most important element in the photographic chain. Leaving it up to a computer is an admission of defeat. My god man... if your using Autofocus.., why even be a photographer.? lol ..
Fantastic breakdown, and I agree, I use vintage lenses for their character and imperfections, but when I have to get the shot, I always use my AF lenses.
nr 1 is denmark LOL i got this lens and love,, i dont get that its too good , next to tge russians and taku and more... i love the oly om serie.. i recommend both the 100 mm 2.8 and 50 1.8 and the 28 mm too
There is an across-the-board problem with all classic lenses which this one seems to have as well; a 'cult-like' following of fans who exaggerate the actual quality (the Helios being a prime example of this phenomenon). You have given an honest and objective review, and I agree with the points you've made - especially about what we expect from old lenses. I am quite happy to keep and use my Super Takumar 1.4, despite having other fairly good old lenses (including a Helios).
While I do agree with you, I will say that the Helios (when you find a good copy) has a rendition and lens character that is fairly unique. More often than not, I'll bring it to a portrait shoot and shoot it on an M42 body alongside whichever other setup I'm using.
My friend, it’s not the equipment that makes good photos, it’s the photographer. These reviews… They’re hopeless. I watch them because maybe I’ll learn something about the technical aspects inside the lens, but otherwise, it is a lost of time.
Aperture ring placement makes much more sense if you take into account the original Olympus OM bodies these lenses were designed for.
Olympus OM-1 to OM-4 have the shutter speed dial in the form of a ring placed directly behind the lens mount akin to an aperture ring itself.
This makes setting the aperture and shutter speed a breeze as you can do it with one hand.
There's not a day passes that I wish that my Fuji body had the same style of shutter speed dial 🙃
And regarding the aperture ring click - it get's much better if you reapply the grease.
All Vintage Lenses were developed to be used with Film, not Digital... As to say, today's modern Lenses are designed to be used with specific type of Sensors, so were Lenses pre Digital Era, to work better with certain brands of Film - Of course, some were Better than others, but it all depended on Price, like it is today!.. It's a detail one should keep in mind when buying Vintage Lenses!
There's a good reason that Zuiko lenses and the associated OM bodies have a strong fanbase: Maitani completely nailed the philosophy behind the system, and in my opinion no other company better optimises simultaneously for ergonomics, size, weight, technical performance and character (especially colours). OM bodies and Zuiko lenses really do do it all well
I'll also add that having used a lot of the Zuikos, I would say that perhaps more than some other lenses, they really shine on film, where the film itself adds some of the character and the sharpness and contrast of the Zuiko lenses is appreciated. At the same time, they do still retain a vintage look, especially to the bokeh, something that using a modern lens on a film body doesn't give you (although modern lenses also have major advantages, including stabilisation and yes, autofocus: even after years of practice, I still miss focus from time to time!) The fabrication and feel is also top notch, and some of the lenses are truly marvels of engineering that are fairly unique, even today, especially given their generally diminutive size.
In the end, taking interesting photos depends on all of the above factors, so as a film shooter, I know I'll be an Olympus fan for as long as I'm taking photos.
I never got the hype behind the 1.4 either and so, against my better judgement, I went ahead and bought one. The 1.4 is a great lens for its age and a decent one even today, but I much prefer the Zuiko 1.8. I own a lot, maybe too many 50s and the 1.8 Zuiko is by far my favourite. It's ever so slightly smaller and lighter than the 1.4, it's sharper when both lenses are wide open, though the 1.4 easily trumps the 1.8 when stopped down at f2 and given that these old Zuikos use full aperture stops, the next stop for the 1.8 is 2.8.
There was a time when one could get the 1.8 at around 10 Euros and that and the great image quality it outputs made it a no-brainer for banging around your neck while out shooting. At one time I had three copies on my shelf for no other reason than because they were that cheap. Nowadays, the 1.8 is more expensive and the 1.4 is too expensive.
My advice, go for the 1.8
This review has saved me from hunting down a copy of this lens after all the positive reviews. I´m looking for the perfect imperfection in my fast 50´s. This was a great perspective on this lens. Thanks.
Thanks for demonstrating this lens. We have similar tastes in old vintage lenses, so much so that if I see anything you recommend at a good price I snap it up. The other day I had my Auto Takumar 35mm f/2.3 out which I bought on your recommendation. I thank you even time I look through my viewfinder and see the world projected by that lens. Character is king!
Thank you so much for your kind words. Its great to read your feedback - it encourages me to keep going!
This lense is my absolute favorite on my Olympus OM1 film camera (which is completely mechanic, no electronics). It is as a sharp as you can get on ISo 100 film emulsions, the color it renders on film is just beautiful and with its super small size it is well suited for hiking. Do I use it on my digital Fuji Xts? No! ...for exactly the reasons you pointed out here.
THX for this fantastic breakdown.
Thanks for the candid and hype-free assessment.
It comes down to personal taste and use. The Olympus 50mm f1.4 is my favourite lens for videos of people, out of all of the many 50mm lenses which I've tried. Olympus colours are delicate and the rendering is beautiful. They are modern enough to look natural and accurate in the digital era, yet full of character. On the other hand, I had a Pancolar and hated it, I found the colours inaccurate and exaggerated and I sold it. I have a Helios 58mm but don't really like it, although it's sharp. Out of focus highlights very rarely appear in my photos because I don't find them visually interesting. If they did appear it would mean that I hadn't composed a photograph properly, and the last thing I would want in any case would be for them to draw attention to themselves.
I want a lens to support the photograph, not to introduce its own quirks. I would make an exception for vintage Konica lenses, which have their own perspective on the world, strong colours and unique rendering, but they are not for every situation. I think you posted a video in praise of the Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8, which is undeniably sharp as well as excellent value. You disliked the 57mm f1.4; I respect the 40mm but love the 57mm, mainly as a short telephoto for portraiture. The criticism you levelled at the Olympus, I would be more inclined to throw at the manual West German Zeiss lenses. I loved them in the film era (as I did Olympus cameras and lenses), they were really good for the time. However, they were sharp and accurate but not very characterful, so I'd rather use a modern autofocus lens for digital photography. (The same applies to old Leica lenses on digital cameras too, come to think of it). It doesn't mean that I am right, only that I am right for my preferences, needs and uses. As are you for yours. And that's as it should be.
What I like the most about my Zuiko lenses is their punchy colors. I took them to sunny Malaga/ Spain w. My Fujifilm X-E4 set up w. the Ektar 100 Film Simulation. The results are stunning. Bokeh can be busy at times but bokeh is not the most important thing to me. Back in the days there wasn't much fuzz about bokeh. It was about having enough head room in difficult lighting situations
Thanks for great video. I've tried around 50 copies of oem manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Yashica, Konica, Rollei) 50mm F1.4 lenses of that era. IMO the lenses of the same era are nearly identical. So if you happy with the lens you have don't believe the hype that x 50mm F1.4 is much better.
I’ve taken many photos with this lens in both film and digital formats. I don’t think it has the character of the Takumar lenses but it is still my most used lens. This is because I prefer the ergonomics and the image quality I think is superior of the other fast lenses I’ve used from the film era. I think it does better on film than digital.
I can't but agree, I love the special qualities of the lenses you describe as excentric, it may be bubbles, swirls, or whatever but if you just want needlepoint sharpness, I just could pick up almost any modern lens, even a modern zoom today is sharper than many vintage lens even towards the edges.
But for that special optical magic, I need the old vintage lenses for all their faults and traits that just make them so lovely.
Thank you for this video. You saved me bothering to look for the Olympus lens.
I always enjoy your reviews of old lenses, because I enjoy using old manual focus lenses. For MFT cameras the old Olympus lenses have the advantage of being smaller and lighter than many of the vintage lenses of similar quality. When I use them on digital cameras I program a button next to the shutter button to punch in (magnify) the spot I want to be in sharp focus, make a final focus adjustment, and snap the shutter. This only takes a fraction of a second, and allows my old eyes to take sharp photos. When I trained as a photographer there were no auto focus cameras and many of the professional cameras I used did not even have built in light meters. 35 millimeter was the smallest film format professionals used unless you were a spy or an avant-garde 16mm film maker. Auto focus lenses have their place, and software that corrects their optical flaws in camera, but they miss focus too, so I often set the camera to Auto -MF when the lens allows it.
Simon, you are one of my favourite RUclipsrs!!
Another great review keep up the good work
Fantastic breakdown, and I agree, I use vintage lenses for their character and imperfections, but when I have to get the shot, I always use my AF lenses.
A possible reason for there appearing to be quite a few of these lenses for sale with fungus is that they are not that easy to disassemble. This is partly due to the design and partly because Olympus used thread locker on the inner components on some of them making them a real cow to get apart. For this reason and because fungus often etches the coatings it is probably best to avoid grubby examples like the plague. Another issue I have come across is balsam separation. This is more likely due to people getting them hot from leaving them in cars and so on, than any error on Olympus' part, however.
This is the lens I use against all other lenses to judge sharpness and color rendering. Beats all the Helios, Jupiter, Takumar, Cosina and others I've owned. Front aperture is the most logical placement, actually.
I've used this lens since 2017 and from day 1 I knew not to use f1.4 because it softens the overall image. Click it up to f2 and you're good to go. Never bring my camera without this lens in the bag. It's brilliant.
I think you should go back and check those reviews. A friend who was in Japan bought me a 1st series OM-1 with this 50mm f1.4. I had been researching cameras for years and the -> f1.8
Many thanks for this information. I suppose I was referring more to reviews from enthusiastic owners. As we all know sharpness is only one aspect of what makes a good and popular lens. Every week, I think "I'm going to do a video on my sharpest fast fifties wide open, from f1.2 lenses up, and show how good some of the f1.8 to f2 lenses I own are". But I've not done one....maybe one day...
This is the first time I've come across someone who mentioned lpm. I did a quick search and it revealed it stands for lines per millimetre. What standard is this and was it used in the days of film photography?
I often have that thought when I use my humble Nikon nifty fifty f/1.8 AFS - every one is in focus, crispy sharp and nice contrast. It only cost £110 used and it performs better than many expensive lenses.
Yes, there are some superb f1.8 lenses...I keep meaning to do a video on them (or maybe f1.7 to f2), and I'll take a look at the Nikon.
Had that lens for a moment about 10 years ago. Liked the tiny footprint, but didn't like the bokeh as much as some other bright fifties (still in love with the Contax Zeiss 50/1.4). Replaced that Zuiko with the 55/1.2 which has a very unique strange "warp-like" bokeh, kinda like the ridiculously expensive Zeiss Pancolar 55/1.4.
Interesting. Thanks for mentioning this lens. A lot of those 55 mm Pancolars are not worth the asking price, especially considering the fact that most of them are damaged. It would likely be cheaper to take a trip out there and coke home with a suitcase full of those lenses found cheaply at their thrift stores and fleamarkets where the sellers often find them. I think at the asking price they go for, you would be better off buying the 75mm F/1.5 Biotar. It would have better performance and swirly boke as you described as warping.
I had that lens on a Pentacon Super, and I think it is vastly overrated, I much prefer the later Jena 50 f1.4, that is, if one must have a f1.4 lens. If not, then the f2 Pancolar is the best of the bunch, in my experience, not to mention that it is only a little over half the depth of the others.
@@petersnow389 Hey, would you mind elborating a bit on why you feel the 50mm F/1.4 is better than the 55mm F/1.4? Also why do you feel the F/2 is the best of the bunch? You skipped the 50mm F/1.8 why is that?
the F2 Pancolar is becoming one of my go-to-favorites, my copy has very high contrast, saturation and sharpness
Yes, it's a fine lens. And a fine looking lens (the Exakta mount zebra version).
C'mon Simon. Missing a man. focus shot is not the fault of the lens. I got two or three of them 1,4 lenses among many other OM. Love their size and punchy colours a lot. Your cognitions make sense although I can't exactly remember when it was the last time I used this lens. Maybe that speaks for itself. I started to lean more towards small Leitz and Voigtländer lenses. However I think I will put this lens on my camera tomorrow and give it a whirl. Thanks for sharing your review. Always interesting.
Can we get a top 10 list of your fav fast 50s? Would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!
Only one of the levers is for stopping down the aperture for DoF preview; the other is the release button for unmounting it.
I was intrigued at the title of this lens review. I too had been tempted to dip into the Zuiko pond. Back in the film days, it was mostly Pentax, Minolta and Olympus. Nikon was out of reach. An excellent and well-balanced appraisal. More importantly, highlighting a discussion that vintage lens enthusiasts often mull over. In the beginning there are so many lenses to choose from. After a while you realise that the most appealing images tend to be from your quirkiest lenses. Of course depending on your style and subject choice. Sometimes your sharpest vintage lens is the right choice. Seems that the Zuiko 50mm f1.4 falls somewhere in between. I have a number of lenses in this same category. So thanks for saving me some money. Not something you have done previously.
You need to try one of these. They are awesome.
Olympus OM-System G.Zuiko Auto-S 55mm f1.2 1974 SN 105050. Radioactive 3389 CPM {I paid: $315: 6-2022}
This lens is special. It is an Art Lens. It is not for perfect photos. It is for really interesting photos.
The Sony A7 has focus peaking. I can do better with just the x 10 magnification button.
Thank you for great Chanel , in general do you recommend printing pictures taking with an older lenses, what's look beautiful in screen look as good in printing?
Yes, absolutely. Up to a certain size (say, an internal wall poster size). After that, it depends on the quality of the rendering from the lens. My wife kindly had an A4 book printed of my Flickr Explore photos and they look superb and very beautiful. (Not the compositions....the quality of the printing!)
@@Simonsutak thank you
I have one of these (came with a bulk purchase) lenses and your assessment if fair. I find it a little soft wide open, but that can give a dreamy effect if that is your thing. I have not tested it for bokeh balls, but expect you're right on.
Nice review.
Simon, Many people buy these old lenses because they have the price point they want. They do not have the money for a multi hundred dollar fast digital autofocus lens. They get tuned in to manual focus and using the camera aids or zone focusing makes it generally work out for them. They don't need autofocus. If they get bad shots they put up with it or do it again. At least its better than film where the result is not seen until you are home or later and you only get 36 shots. With digital once you have the gear you get as many as you want at no additional charge. And then blurred backgrounds is a very personal thing. Not everyone likes the cats eyes or circles that seem to haunt RUclips. Myself I far prefer a background that's smooth but shows what it is.
And any one who actually used these older manual lenses in the early second half of last century knows that none of them were brilliant wide open. The fast aperture was to enable lower light shooting rather than bokeh which was never mentioned in those days. Not forgetting faster lenses were because film ASA was under 200, and mostly double digits and B&W under 400 normally
Intéressant, et est ce compatible au panasonic lumix gx8 ?
The soligor Red P lens 35 f2 , 28 f2 135 f2 , 200 f2 and 55 f2.8 macro . Have some the absolute best colors of any vintage lens I have ever tried. I own 3 of the 5 I mentioned. I really feel you would enjoy them and would love to see a video . There is just not much out there on them
Many thanks for these suggestions - I'll do some research into these lenses/prices etc.
I use mine on an OM1. Your review is interesting and sound for digital camera use, an older single coated G.Zuiko version might give slightly different results.
Many thanks. Yes, I wondered about the older versions. I tend to prefer lesser coated old lenses, as they can capture nice "light" and more painterly images, when the contrasts are slightly washed out.
100% agree is to NORMAL for manual focusing and missing shots. i can take 50mm f2 sigma is small and vintage feel but with good AF...i searching something MORE in vintage lensel. THX 4 this
sir, could you please make a review of the Konica Varifocal Hexanon AR 35-100 mm f2.8?
Thanks! Reasonable explanations. I have an f/1.8 or is it an f/2.0 ...? (old) OM Zuiko. Fungus or jam of the aperture blades is the prob in most cases ... that’s true ... the unfortunate lash or play maybe slackness when closing the aperture may result from a clean-up ...?
6:53
I'm surprised you still haven't tried a Techart LM-EA9 autofocus adapter with your lenses.
Maybe I will, but I’m happy using my modern AF lenses in situations where I need a auto focus.
I used to shoot a lot of tranparancies for picture libraries using an OM4 with a Zuiko 50mm f1.4. I used to think they were very sharp until I switched, first to a Rollei 3003 with a Zeiss 50mm f1.7, and then a Contax RTS with a Zeiss 50mm f1.7. The Zuiko is good but not in the league of the Zeiss lenses.
Focus peaking helps a LOT with lenses like this.
You can get autofocus adapters. I have the Fotodiox Pronto for my OM lenses (I believe it is a copy of the Techart AF adapter) and the new one is supposed to have eye-AF (but I don't often use my OM lenses for portraits). You need an additional OM to Leica M-mount adapter to go between the lens and AF adapter, but it works well. Although intended for shorter lenses, it can be used with telephotos if you do an approximate manual focus and let the adapter do the rest (the focus limit on the adapter is not enough for longer lenses).
Try the Olympus 50mm f1.2. It has a soft glow at f1.2 with useable sharpness and character bokeh and gets very sharp at f2. Don’t bother trying to shoot anything moving at f1.2, however.
I have the f/1.8 and f/1.2-- the f/1.8 is nice but the f/1.2 is really great! Maybe I'll grab a 1.4 to complete the lineup!
I rate mine as one of if not the best when it comes to sharpness even out to the very edges.
I still don't use it as much as i should for similar reasons such as having more eccentric ones.
Missing focus can easily happen because the lens was new to you. Some lenses are hard to nail the focus until you get used to them.
Simon was looking to find fault with the lens. Essentially what he is saying is it’s technically superb and better than most of his vintage glass and a wide range of scenarios.
Canon Nikon Pentax Olympus Konica made very fine lenses and wouldn't hesitate to use any of them. The companies were manufacturing the best lenses they can manufacture. They were excellent but not excellent enough. Now I've had some third-party lenses that use absolutely cheap glass. The defects would show in the prints.
The Olympus 50/1.4 was my first Lens for my first camera, OM1, 45 years ago. Now, I still love the old OM lenses and have collected many of them except the 50/1.4. I have never satisfied with this lens as it did not deliver any sharp pictures in my past experience. Even the two versions of OM 50/1.2 lens are better.
This lens is the closest "modern look" vintage lenses I own or have ever used. I have one of these lenses and never use it, I paid about $30 dollars for it so I keep it. I think its construction inside and out is beautiful. But I find it too good for "the vintage look" and not as good as even my cheapest AF 50 such as the Sony FE 50mm f1.8 or my Canon EF 50 f1.8 STM. My favorite 50mm with AF is the SIgma 50mm f1.4 ART for Canon (which I use on my Sony as well). Personally for a vintage lens, I want crazy bokeh. Either explosive or soapy, not a smooth look like modern lenses.
On the opposite end of lenses that fail to have uniqueness, would be lenses that are too wild - that have more character than one would normally want.
Hypothetically, such a lens as mentioned above would be more controlled on an APSC camera, I would love to know if there are any lenses that's character might work for an APSC sensor.
Interesting question. Lenses that are strong at the centre but very weak towards the edges (on FF) can be good on APS-C sensors. Wider angle lenses, for example. One wider angle lens that produces a lot of character, but on APS-C acts more like a fast fifty is the Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Lydith 30mm f3.5.
@@Simonsutak Had a look at that, I'm more into interesting bokeh than lens flair. Or should I be looking for the non-reproduction? I think it's been made a few times.
I have used zuiko 50mm f/1.8 , 135mm and 200mm then sold them all. Their looks are like modern lenses that's why i sold them. I'd rather less contrasty lenses.
Thanks for saying what I've always thought about concerning most of the RUclips vintage lens videos and they're conclusions. at some point, 'vintage' lenses can be pointless especially since we have modern manual lenses to choose from.
As for the f1.2 lenses? I'm being selfish, but I hope you get the 50mm f1.2 and the 55mm f1.2 lenses to compare to each other. I own the 55mm f1.2 and always find myself wondering about the 50mm f1.2 and whether I should bother.
Hey, TBH, I think you'll prefer your 55mm F/1.2 better. That extra 5mm will produce better spherical highlights due to the compression of the longer focal length. 58mm lenses are also rather nice.
@princeharbinger Thanks for the insight. I have indeed read about the 55mm having the more attractive bokeh compared to it's sibling, but since I've never seen the tradeoff in sharpness for myself, I was curious and thought I'd ask!
@seoulrydr No problem. If I ever heard anyone say vintage lenses are pointless, I'd unsubscribe to them. While there are modern MF lenses, most of them are made by Chinese manufacturers. Only a select few are better than vintage lenses, and that would be for me at least the UWA and WA lenses. Not so much for portraiture for me as I prefer the look of vintage lenses and corner performance is irrelevant in portraiture, unlike landscape and astrophotography, for example. The thing with any modern lens is this. They don't replicate the look of vintage lenses as far as the character of the spherical highlights goes. The handling and build quality is also vastly different. Modern, for the most part, tends to be sterile and soulless. Everything is overly corrected, flat and boring, to say the least. It's a subjective personal preference for the user and their use case scenario. I wouldn't personally use a vintage lens for a wedding, at least not for the entire duration. But when I think about it, the photographers in the film days got by with it well. The thing is, now people have smartphones where they can take a photo instantly, and the client isn't going to want to watch you fiddle around with the focus ring throughout the day. They are mostly impatient and want the photos taken quickly. However, when you are doing a shoot with a paid model, you can take your time. If you are doing it just for fun, than none of this really will apply to you. Have at it to your hearts content. As for sharpness, it varies but I will say this out of all the 50-55mm F/1.2 lenses that I've tested wide open I've never been overly impressed with the acuity until stopping down a bit and some lenses actually perform better with their spherical highlights upon stopping down. There's a few people out there that will BS about the quality of a lens, and I'm not one of them. If anything, just pick some up on Ebay and try them out. Make sure the seller has a return policy, and if you are not happy with the performance, simply send it back for a refund.
A wonderful account of exactly how I feel about vintage lenses as well.
I have both, and the 50mm f1.2 is an outstanding lens. It gives a magical, dreamy look wide open (like the 55mm f1.2) while still being reasonably sharp (unlike the 55mm f1.2). Then stopped down it's very sharp and contrasty, competing even with the legendary 50mm f2 macro. The bokeh is certainly less wild, so depending what your after, you might like it more or less. It also has the cat's eyes like the f1.4, although with less outlining. I wouldn't say it's worth forking out the high asking price for if you already have the 55, but I like it more because it feels like it can do anything: dreamy magic at f1.2 and then contrasty sharpness with nice bokeh from f2 upwards. It's also somewhat smaller and lighter, although not much.
If the AF system of your camera is perfect, why can't you use it to affirm focus when using manual focus lenses?
I can with my Nikon D600 D750.
Fascinating.
Ok, what are some of the more “exotic” vintage lenses you love (price no object)?
I'll take up the challenge. Some rare and/or expensive old lenses I love: Tomioka Auto Revuenon 55mm f1.2 (for its eccentric bokeh wide open); Takumar 58mm f2.4 (ditto, and its rare Heliar design); Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm f2 (cheaper than the Pancolar f1.8, but swirlier); Helios 77M-4 (stopped down a little it's better than the 44-2); Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm f2.8 (because it feels like you're using a legendary lens); and competing with the Olympus, the 8 element Super-Takumar 50mm f1.4....plus the Macro-Takumar 50mm f4, my first macro lens. Plus many others around f1.8! I'm currently using a Carl Zeiss Ultron 50mm f1.8, with its unusual concave front element. I'm a proud owner of that lens. I enjoy all my radioactive lenses...carefully.
How about yours?
You should definitely try the Techart LM-EA9 autofocus adapter. It helps old lens to achieve autofocus with decent speed and accuracy, and with that I took many photo that would be otherwise impossible to take with a manual, old lens.
since this contraption only moves entire lend back and forth it is good only for very old lenses not longer than 50mm.
if we talk about later "golden era" primes of high quality they are mostly contain some sort of floating elements which activated only when you use focusing ring.
with such lenses and this adapter image quality will suffer depending on focusing distance.
You can use the Techart in conjuction with the floating element, just turn the focus ring to somewhere roughly resembles close distance, press AF button and the adapter will "guide" the lens to the focus point. No need to always set the lens to infinity. @@vasyapupken
very good video and i can fully agree to your conclusion.
I like old lens and have a decent collection of primes and tele’s some are even hazy. It’s like you say all about the character of the lens. I shoot mostly on OMD and have a em5 mk1 and a em1 mk3. I also have a few 85mm f2 that I use on a Canon 6D that makes stunning portraits. Especially in natural/low light. At the end of the day if I could only have one body and lens. It would be the em1 mk3 and my 12-40 f2 pro. Mind you I’m more of an outdoor enthusiast and some Astro. I will do family/friends portraits and an occasional wedding.
I never used or owned the Zuiko 50 f1.4 lens, I do own a Zuiko 55mm f1.2 and it is a fantastic lens with many quirky characteristics...I own many versions of the Zuiko 50mm f 1.8 lenses and prefer the early ones for B&W photography. Worse Zuiko OM lens IMO is the 35mm f2.8 lens, or maybe it is just my specimen.
I have this lens (same late version). Its greatest quality is IMO as a landscape lens: it’s very sharp at infinity from corner to corner already at f/4 (on a 42+ mp camera). For close subjects however, the lens is rather soft at wide apertures (f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8). Wide open, the famous Tomioka 55mm f/1.4 (sold under different brand names such as Chinon, Revuenon etc) is quite a bit sharper when focusing at a close subject. The Mamiya EF 50/1.4 is even way, way sharper in this regard, and is very good at infinity as well stopped down.
The question is: why such a fast lens, when it’s particular quality is landscapes (@infinity). I would recommend the Minolta MD 50/2 as a landscape lens instead; it is equally sharp, be it one stop later than the Zuiko, but has a few other advantages (better flare resistance, lighter weight, better CA control, much cheaper).
This Mamiya EF 50mm F/1.4 doesn't appear to exist on eBay. I'm guessing you meant the CS? I was always under the impression that slower lenses were meant for landscape while faster lenses could be used for landscape but were more desirable and intended for portraiture. Thanks for the Minolta recommendation. I'll look into it. I currently own the Minolta MD 50mm F/1.4. I prefer its rendering and color better than my copy of the Super Takumar 50mm F/1.4 8 element version. However, the build quality is superb and more desirable for me personally with the Takumar.
@@princeharbinger No, I do mean the EF. It sometimes appears as rebranded Revuenon EF. They fit the Mamiya ZE bodies.
@Snikkelbek Interesting, so what would be the difference between it and the CS version?
@@princeharbinger According to some previous tests done by others the EF is better than the CS.
@@Snikkelbek Why isn't this lens coming up on my searches?
I've several OMs including a 50/1.4 but they never really got me and like my Canon FDn lenses they get hardly used, instead I grab a few old FLs, Fujicas or some Russian lenses. There is a difference between just a manual lens like the OM, FDn etc and a vintage lens.
Interesting review - I dont understand why you only talk about using it on digital. Maybe you dont shoot film or have no interest in it (which is quite ok)!? IMO this lens is not just good but a great lens on film. Ive heard similar statements on Leica lenses - just amazing on film not that great on digital. My point being if used for what it was made for this lens is a great little performer at a very reasonable price :-)
A very good point, and I really need to say at the start of these videos that I'm only going to comment on the lens's performance on digital cameras. One of my favourite lenses on film was a 24mm f3.5 prime, but on digital it's not nearly as good as even a modern zoom kit lens. Regarding Leica, I've been using an old Leitz Elmar 5cm f3.5, and I've just reviewed the Summicron-R 50mm f2, and I very enjoyed both lenses on digital!
I had one, serial number below 1 million. It had glow even at f2. Did not like it at all. Also tried 50mm 1.7, did not like either. Sure I did not have more expensive Zuikos, but among several Zuikos I had, only 28 f2.8 was nice imho.
seems to be a more 'modern' rendering vintage lens
best 50 i've ever used is the auto rikennon 55mm f1.4 ( tomioka version), character aside it's just very good
Yes, I like the Tomioka made 55mm f1.4 lenses (I've got the Mamiya/Sekor branded one). I've recently been using a very similar flat rear element 55mm f1.4 lens, that is not radioactive - the Cosina Cosinon 55mm f1.4, and it's full of character too.
@Simonsutak OH wow, that means I have had that lens all along and didn't realize it. Thank you for saving me some money. I love the way the black and silver version of the Mamiya 55mm F/1.4 version looks. It's a beautiful lens, and the rendering of the spherical highlights is nothing short of beautiful.
I have Autorevuenon 55mm f1.4 (Tomioka) and tested against all other 50 mm lenses (Pentax, Pancolar Zebra, Konica, Pentacon, Helios) and it is the sharpest lens of all!! Not testing against SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 and 55mm f1.8, great lenses too, which I bougt few months ago. I was always astonished with images made with Auto Rikenon f1.4 (sharpness, character and colors) and I love it so much despite that I don't have it. Maybe it will be the next purchase.
@ZOly62 The lens you want to get is fairly cheap, and it is the same as the Mamiya. Although, for some reason, the lens you mentioned has a slightly different color in its optics. It appears ember in color, while the mamiya is the typical yellow color due to the thorium doped inside. I'm not saying that the Auto Rikenon doesn't have thorium. I'm sure that it does it just appears that they might have used a different coating for at least the front and rear element. Personally, I think the silver and black version is the best-looking version. Which would be the Mamiya branded version. If only if they would have thought to use a scalped focusing ring, it would have been superb.
@@princeharbingerI am not sure that I understand you clearly. Did you suggest me to go with Mamyija Sekkor rather than to Auto Rikenon?
I've never gotten along with the f1.4 and its wacky bokeh, the f1.8 is a much nicer rendering lens.
I like the f1.2 OM 50G I have quite a bit, but it's radioactive, which puts it out of the running as a 'travel' lens, sadly.
Travel lens for where the U.S. or EU?
Anywhere. It's not worth the headache to bring anything radioactive to the airport unless it's a medical device.@@princeharbinger
nr 1 is denmark LOL i got this lens and love,, i dont get that its too good , next to tge russians and taku and more... i love the oly om serie.. i recommend both the 100 mm 2.8 and 50 1.8 and the 28 mm too
then i gonna recomed my fav， pentax k 50 1.2 ，it has the most smooth bokeh of all vintage 50 ，dreamy flavor @ 1.2， enough sharpness since f2
You think so? I find my copy to look rather busy. I guess it depends on the distance you are to the subject. I just tested it the other day for decenterment and it didn't do so well in the corners. Even though corners are irrelevant for portraiture. Think I might pickup the A version and see if it's a well centered copy.
Two observations after watching your video; 1. You state you are looking for a vintage look from your lens, yet you chose the most modern version of the lens. If you want a more eccentric or dated rendering,, try choosing an OLDER lens. Not the latest. 2, The picture of your daughter, in the hat you used as you example of poor focus. Well, there was NO ACTION in the shot. She was just standing there waiting for you to take her picture. YOU didn't bother to accurately focus your lens on the subject. You stated you wanted the camera to focus the lens for you. That comes across to me that you need to AVOID auto-focus and spend more time focusing your pictures yourself!
Many thanks for your comments, much appreciated. Especially about trying the older version. On point 2, I agree with you. It's not true to say I can't track people playing tennis with a manual focus lens. I can. It's just that I prefer to use my Sony AF tracking and digital lens these days. So there's a downside (for me at least) to using a MF lens, even a great MF lens.
It doesn't have autofocus... then your autofocus misses focus :)
No fringing nice.
But Halo/Bloom I don't like that. Still Great Value for money
Work on your photography skills.
That's awfully rude of you to say. Let's see your work using vintage lenses.
If what you're saying is stop buying more and more old lenses and concentrate on compositional skills, then yes, you're probably right. That's a good message for anyone.
If you're saying I need to work on my focusing and exposure setting skills...well it's too late. I've used manual focus lens and manual settings for over 40 years. I much prefer auto-focus lenses/cameras (and even iPhones) in some situations. And I only showed over-exposed images to demonstrate how my digital camera's auto-metering system responded to this particular lens in some types of light.
Thank you!
@@Simonsutak I admit the dig on manual focusing rubbed me the wrong way.. As far as doing something for 40 years.. Just because you have been at it a while, dosnt mean your any good at it. The fact is manual focusing is skill that requires constant practice to maintain. Your love of autofocus has made you dependant on it. When was the last time you went out and practiced focusing on people walking towards you and away? Moving cars...animals. Focus can be argued that it is the is the single most important element in the photographic chain. Leaving it up to a computer is an admission of defeat. My god man... if your using Autofocus.., why even be a photographer.? lol ..
Fantastic breakdown, and I agree, I use vintage lenses for their character and imperfections, but when I have to get the shot, I always use my AF lenses.
nr 1 is denmark LOL i got this lens and love,, i dont get that its too good , next to tge russians and taku and more... i love the oly om serie.. i recommend both the 100 mm 2.8 and 50 1.8 and the 28 mm too