Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,002   Posts: 1,524,427   Online: 1041
      
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 61
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    65
    Lenses analyzed to death... Yes, that's very true. I have no experience with OM glass, only Nikkors (ans Contax/Zeiss; don't really see why that would be prohibitively more expensive) and find f.i. the 2.0/85 Ai-S gives beautiful portrait results in b&w. But so do the 2.8 and 1.4/85 Sonnar and Planar, albeit in a different way (the Nikkor appears to render a bit harsher).

    There is of course also a difference in size, weight and handling of the bodies. I found OM bodies to be too small for my medium sized hands, and didn't like the sutterspeed ring as opposed to a dial. But that's all personal preference; you have to try for yourself.

    my humble suggestion would be to start easy:

    OM1 or 2 with 35 and 85

    or

    FM2 or FE2 with 35 and 85

    or

    RTS or RTSII with 35 and 85

    Take all lenses with 2.0 or 2.8. You save a lot that way, weight. And money wise.

    Let us know what you do!

  2. #12
    narsuitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by franny View Post
    I want to dip into one of these systems but I'm having trouble weighing the pros and cons for each system. My interest is in general use and portraits (handheld and tripod) without flash.
    Nikon and Olympus make great photographic equipment. I use Nikon film and digital cameras. I also use Olympus digital cameras.

    One big con for me was the way the Olympus (and Nikormats) handled due to the location of their shutter controls. I prefer my shutter speed control on top of the camera where I can adjust it with my right hand as opposed to around the lens mount where I have to adjust it with my left hand.

    Back in the days when some news organizations made the switch from Nikon to Olympus, many pro photographers and camera repair technicians said that the Olympus was not tough enough for heavy use like the Nikon.

    The Nikon system is more extensive than the Olympus system.

    Quote Originally Posted by franny View Post
    My interest is in general use and portraits (handheld and tripod) without flash.
    Either system will do an excellent job.

    Quote Originally Posted by franny View Post
    I'm choosing these two mounts because they are moderatly available, affordable, and compatibile with digital bodies.
    I love the Nikon mount because it allows me to use all my old Nikon lenses on the new Nikon digital cameras. I understand that only Nikon, Pentax, and Leica digital bodies can accept their old film lenses without needing adapters.

    Quote Originally Posted by franny View Post
    I never really thought too much about Minolta and Pentax, but I see no reason to choose those over Olympus and Nikon.
    There are times when I need a smaller, lighter, and less expensive 35mm SLR body. I have never had the opportunity to use the Olympus OM1 but I have used the following:
    Nikon EM
    Nikon N70/F70
    Pentax ME (smaller and lighter than the Olympus OM1)

    Quote Originally Posted by franny View Post
    Olympus is cheaper, smaller, and lighter.
    When the Olympus OM1 35mm camera was first introduced, I fell in love with its innovative small size, its lightweight, and its attractive look. Had I not been fully invested in the Nikon system, I would have bought an OM1.

    Quote Originally Posted by franny View Post
    I'm interested in the following focal lengths: 28, 35, 50, 85, 100/105
    I have five of these lenses. However, I rarely carry all five at the same time because some are too close together in focal length. I carry the 28, 50, and 105 or the 35 and 85.

    Quote Originally Posted by franny View Post
    If I go Nikkor, then I was thinking of the following setup (All AI-S): 28mm f2.0, 50mm f1.4, 105mm f1.8/ f2.5
    For my shooting style I prefer:
    28mm f/2.8 (at this focal length, I do not need the extra light gathering of an f/2)
    50mm f/1.4
    105mm f/2.5 (this legendary portrait lens deserves its reputation)

    Quote Originally Posted by franny View Post
    In the future, i would add 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 or 35mm f2 and 85mm f2 for economy and filter thread consistency..
    For these focal lengths, I use these Nikon lenses:
    35mm f/1.4 (uses 52mm filter)
    85mm f/1.8 (also uses 52mm filter)

    Quote Originally Posted by franny View Post
    Who makes the better lenses?
    Nikkor and Zuiko lenses are very similar in optical quality. Both are superb

    Older Nikon lenses are more plentiful and less costly than their Zuiko counterpart.

    Quote Originally Posted by franny View Post
    Which 35mm should I get? I hear that the f1.4 is a dog, if that is the case then I may as well go with the f2.0 lens.
    I totally disagree with what you hear about the Nikon 35mm lenses. The 35mm f/2 lens was the first lens I purchased for my Nikon camera. It was great lens and it was my favorite lens for general shooting. In fact, I used it so much that I had to replace it twice – once with another f/2 and more recently with an f/1.4. I was very surprised to discover that my new Nikon 35mm f/1.4 had even better image quality than my f/2. Now, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 is my favorite lens.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/11336821@N00/5349100247/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/11336821@N00/7011397917/
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Photo 071425 sml.JPG   Nikon F2 146b hdr retouch sml.jpg  

  3. #13
    baachitraka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,279
    Without hot-shoes they look beautiful.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 177215_4674769149368_925397251_o.jpg  
    OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
    Rolleicord Va: Humble.
    Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    389
    of all the bodies mentioned, nikon f2 hands down

    true, i wouldn't write my mom about any of the nikon 35s--though the 35/2 ais is at least as competent as it is uninspiring. 105/1.8 is miles ahead of the rather bland 2.5, if you care to lug the extra weight. 50/1.4 is just plain meh--grab the longnose 1.8 or the latest 1.2, both have very pleasing pictorial character that all the 1.4s lack. 28/2 ais is nothing short of magic

    worth about $0.02 perhaps, but hey, i practice what i preach--roaming eu these days with the 28/2-50/1.2-105/1.8, no regrets


  5. #15
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,157
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Nielsen View Post
    ...I only have the ordinary lenses (28/2.8, 35/2.8 and 50/1.8). I love my OM2N and OM4 and with those lenses, especially the 28, they produce amazing results.

    You will pay 4x more for the 2.0 lenses over the 2.8 ones...
    I stayed with the 2.0 lenses when I was building my system. They are heavier and larger than the 2.8 ones, and yet the 2.8 ones have a good reputation for lighter weight and better quality because they have fewer elements (I guess this would be in flare-inducing conditions where the number of elements is noticeable).

    So if acquiring an OM system, I'd recommend the lighter/smaller wides, for price and because less weight is more important for me these days (I'm a backpacker).

    But the 85mm f/2.0 is a good portrait lens that I often carry.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    529
    Images
    133
    I just came back walking the dog. I was carrying my OM1 with 1.8/50 MIJ mounted in the pocket of my jacket just to fill up the roll with some pictures of fallen leafs. May be there are some Pentax bodies equally small as the OM-bodies but the lenses aren't. And there is another difference to Pentax. In making the bodies small they made the controls tiny too. Olympus managed to minimize the size of the body while keeping the controls and the finder large. I have never felt it to be a drawback that I can not see the dialed in speed and aperture in the finder. The finder is uncluttered with distracting information. I use to decide on the aperture before raising the camera and the dialed in speed I can feel in my left hands middle finger and thumb, as the position of the grips of the speed ring is telling me.

    Ulrich

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    86
    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. If you ever plan to use this camera with gloves on, make sure you try the OM before you buy it. Both are wonderful systems.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,325
    I switced from Olympus to Nikon in the mid 1990s, primarily due to the fact that my early version OM-4 needed a new battery everydamn time I wanted to use it. Other reasons were that the OM bodies got lost in my large-economy-size hands; the early 50/1.4 lens which came with an OM-2 ca. 1978 wasn't very good at f1.4. The OM bodies are nowhere near as rugged and well made as a Nikon F or F2. The OM-2 and OM-4 are useless without the battery. The Oly lenses are excellent, by and large, but the Nikkors are if anything a bit better, sometimes a lot better.

  9. #19
    PDH
    PDH is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    s The OM bodies are nowhere near as rugged and well made as a Nikon F or F2. The OM-2 and OM-4 are useless without the battery. The Oly lenses are excellent, by and large, but the Nikkors are if anything a bit better, sometimes a lot better.
    The Air Force field tested Olympus in the mids 70's and both the LA times and AP tired Olympus, but all found that the OM 1 was not as rugged as the Nikon F or F2. I am not sure how a OM 4 would have help up.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,325
    Quote Originally Posted by PDH View Post
    ... I am not sure how a OM 4 would have help up.
    Poorly, it was less rugged than the OM-1. I've been inside all of the OM series cameras and there is no comparison to an F or F2.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin