Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,735   Posts: 1,515,470   Online: 1094
      
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 61
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    795
    My only Zuiko 35 is the 35/2.8. It is a decent performer. The 35/2.8 'K' Nikkor and early AI lenses have the 6/6 design and are very sharp. All of the 35/2 Nikkors are very good. You will not get better results with one brand than another. All of the equipment mentioned is capable of good results if it is in good condition and used properly. You get more bang for the buck with Canon FD or Minolta manual focus lenses than with Zuikos or Nikkors. The early Zuikos were not very sturdily built and far fewer of them were made than Nikkors. The Nikkors are now used on digital cameras and many were used professionally and show it. Of the Minolta lenses the 35/1.8s are very expensive as are all of the 85s. The 100/2.5 lenses are all good and now reasonably priced. The 28/3.5 and 2.8 lenses are both good but the 28/2 is not very common and usually expensive. The 50/1.4, 50/1.7 and 50/3.5 (Macro) lenses are all good. I prefer a late 200/3.5 to a 200/4. There are almost too many different 135/2.8 models to choose from. They are all decent with the second version MC being my least favorite. The Canon FD SC 28/2.8 and the 28/2 FD SSC are both excellent. All Canon 35/2 lenses are good but the early ones are discolored. There aren't really any duds in the Canon FD line from 28-200. The early 200/4 FD (without the SSC marking) is prone to flare.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    288
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by franny View Post
    -Which 105mm should I get? The Sonnar 105mm f2.5 is legendary, but to me, it seems that this lens might be a bit over-rated because it is a Sonnar and everything. I'm not sure.
    Over-rated because it is a Sonnar? What do you mean?

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    20
    Well I decided to go Zuiko.

    Many small reasons just compounded.

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

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

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

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

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

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Dali View Post
    Over-rated because it is a Sonnar? What do you mean?
    I mean, everyone speaks so highly of the Sonnar because the bokeh is special (especially with rangefinder 50's) but the Sonnar bokeh doesn't seem so much better than the Planar bokeh, to me. The difference to me seems small. I haven't looked or seen negatives from the 105mm f2.5 so I'm not sure.

  5. #35
    Allan Swindles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wirral, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    250
    I'm an OM user and devotee through and through. Having spent years in the trade, when the first OM-1 non MD model was introduced, it was the camera system for me. I still have it, it's still going strong but as a spectical wearer I did have problems with light entering the viewfinder and affecting the exposure and so my wife uses it now. Not so with the OM-2, 2n versions, which I use regularly now, OTF (metering of the film) has eliminated this problem completely. Over the years I have built up a considerable arsenal of OM equipment because it was light and compact. A well thought out system, no one knew how well thought out, until the introduction of the OM-2. It has progressed, the OM-4Ti was the last model produced. If you can afford one, buy it, but ensure it's in good condition. OM-1's, 1-n's will need new light seals and possibly
    2's and 2-n's. Do not buy an OM-4T unless it has been upgraded. The early models eat batteries. If you can stretch to it, buy a mint, exe++,
    OM- 4Ti., no if's, no but's, buy it, you'll not be disappointed. Nikon, well they do have the reputation and I cannot deny that they produce excellent equipment, as do Canon and perhaps others, but to me the compactness and the versatility of the OM SYSTEM wins every time. It was only after this system was introduced that other manufacturers started to get their act together but the OM system, IMHO, is still the best SLR SYSTEM ever produced.
    I'm into painting with light - NOT painting by numbers!

  6. #36
    Allan Swindles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wirral, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    250
    franny, don't buy wide aperture lenses unless you REALLY need them. I have a 50mm. f1.4 which I haven't yet used below f2.8.
    I'm into painting with light - NOT painting by numbers!

  7. #37
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,674
    Images
    108
    Buy Leica.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    20
    I have Leica RF with some of their older glass which I'm happy with but I limit myself to normal lenses because shorter and longer lenses are more difficult to frame (and afford!).

    A Leica SLR seems natural but I decided against them because I think that the Japanese made better bodies and systems. I held a Leicaflex and I was unimpressed (A Leica RF is a different story). The Leica SLR glass "might" be better than the Japanese glass but I can't justify/afford a suite of lenses. If I only wanted 1-2 focal lengths then I'd seriously consider this route, but this is not the case.
    Last edited by franny; 10-24-2012 at 08:10 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #39
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Allan Swindles View Post
    franny, don't buy wide aperture lenses unless you REALLY need them. I have a 50mm. f1.4 which I haven't yet used below f2.8.
    Except with an SLR you'll get a brighter view in the viewfinder.

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

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,419
    Franny, I'm happy you have chosen my favorite brand.

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

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

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

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

Page 4 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