Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,922   Posts: 1,556,601   Online: 1221
      
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 85
  1. #31
    jjphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Allan Swindles View Post
    Why does everyone want f1.4 and f2.0, fast lenses? They're bound to be more expensive when compared with the f3.5 and f2.8 versions but not necessarily better.
    Fast lenses are certainly not always better, some times they are optically worse than their slower versions, but they do have their advantages.

    With some 50/1.4's I've noticed that you can get a smoother bokeh from the F1.4 lens stopped down to F2.8 than you get from an F2.0 lens stopped down to F2.8.

    When shot wide open fast lenses can have a funky or interesting look of their own, which can be useful.

    They can be easier to focus, but not always as some fast lenses are not very sharp wide open anyway.

    I think there are tangible differences and good reasons to have fast lenses but it depends on what you shoot. A fast lens won't help the average landscape shooter that shoots at F8-11 all the time. At the end of the day you can always stop a fast lens down but you can't open up a slow lens.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Washington, the state
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,143
    Images
    16

    It's simple supply and demand

    Quote Originally Posted by dugrant153 View Post
    I've been trying to build up an OM system after having some pretty good success shooting a few events with an OM4.

    However, I was browsing some of the lenses on Ebay (40mm F2, 24mm F2.8, etc.) and could not believe the asking prices. Perhaps it has to do with less supply than say Nikon or Canon lenses but .... wow. I'm just stunned.

    Has the Olympus OM system really made a massive resurgence such that lenses that people couldn't get rid of before are now becoming crazy popular? Is it the mirrorless digital systems?

    Or maybe I'm looking at the wrong sellers
    A lot of the OM System lenses had fairly low production numbers. Total number of OM System SLRs was several million.

    The 40mm f2.0 Zuiko Auto-S production was probably around 10,000 units.
    The 24mm f2.8 Zuiko Auto-W production was at least 125,000 units.
    The 24mm f2.0 Zuiko Auto-W production should be 18,000-20,000 units.
    The 21mm f2.0 Zuiko Auto-W production was less than 7,000 units.
    The 100mm f2.0 Zuiko Auto-T production was less than 10,000 units.
    The 250mm f2.0 Zuiko Auto-T production was around 600 units.

    If there are only a few for sale, the sellers may have the advantage.
    Dave

    "She's always out making pictures, She's always out making scenes.
    She's always out the window, When it comes to making Dreams.

    It's all mixed up, It's all mixed up, It's all mixed up."

    From It's All Mixed Up by The Cars

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    617
    IIRC, the 1.8 50 mm Zuiko was acknowledged to be a better lens than the 1.4. Standard lenses of F1.8 - 2 and wides of F2.8 from most manufacturers are still reasonably priced and perfectly usable photographic tools. In the days before sellers broke cameras into parts to get the highest price, most were sold with a lens. I have a bunch of 50mm 1.8s in the camera drawer, and all are good performers. The main drive on prices of wide aperture lenses are a) oneupmanship (mine-is-wider-than-yours), b) DSLR users, especially for movie use, c) lack of supply. Regarding cinematography, for close ups and medium shots, F2.8 still gives a narrow DoF, F2 is the practical limit for tracking a moving person, and that with great difficulty, and 1.4 is pot luck if sharp focus is a requirement. Most subjects simply do not require the degree of separation ultra-wide aperture lenses facilitate. Save some money and spend it on film.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,597
    The subject of maximum lens apertures seems sometimes to provoke a frenzy of discussion. A welter of people often weigh in with "you never need more than than 2.8", uttered with all the indignant moral conviction of the true Zealot.

    The use of large apertures is not limited to bokeh-fiends or subject separation. Sometimes an extra stop (or two) is needed to make a photograph handheld at shutter-speeds that would would otherwise be impossible to hand-hold. For some, therefore, the difference between f/2 and f/2.8 is simply the difference between 1/15th and 1/8th.

    What one person considers another "needs" is of no import in discussions like this. Dogmatic statements about the largest aperture "anyone" needs is simply another example of an invented snobbery.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    617
    Clearly, a wide maximum aperture is sometimes useful, but there's always a work around. Nearly all the 'zealots' for ultrawide aperture lenses seem to spend their time perfecting out of focus highlights instead of making photographs. It's their time and money, I was answering the OPs question about the climb in lens prices and who was behind it. Film professionals often bought wide aperture lenses because the IQ was superior a stop, or two, down. That tendency seems to have died in the chase for wider is better shooting.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    USA, Pac/NW
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    368
    Here is a link to 'The Unofficial Olympus Lens Page.' http://chlngr.com/zuiko.html
    The page was last updated NOV 2004.
    I have found the page to be helpful / informative when trying to 'ball-park' prices for OM Zuiko lenses.

    Marc

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    東京
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    212
    The Leica crowd have driven up the prices. The OM system was created by Yoshihisa Maitani to be the SLR version of the the Leica M rangefinder camera. The original OM camera, the M1 copied Leica clowsely enough to use a model name which Leica produced.

    The OM camera's dimensions were carefully compared to the Leica M during development, and the OM camera was kept as small and silent as was possible for an SLR camera at the time. The lenses were also designed to be small and light, keeping the weight of the entire kit low.

    Compared side-by-side, an Olympus OM camera and lens are remarkablly similar in size and proportion to a Leica M camera (I shoot both systems, and have compared them myself more than a few times). Internet forums and posts have sung the praises of the OM system, directly comparing it with Leica gear, and more than a few have become interested in shooting or simply collecting OM gear. The relative scarcity of the faster OM lenses have had their values driven up disproportionately high, particularly the 40/2, which isn't nearly as good a performer as the dirt cheap 50/1.8.

    I have sold off much of my OM stuff (for a profit), and now shoot mostly with rangefinders, or Nikon SLR's (just a matter of taste for me).

  8. #38
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    As a Leica owner and user of (but not owner) of various Olympus OMs - I personally do not see the similarity. Not anymore than a Pentax MX or Minolta XD-11 being a "small SLR."
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  9. #39
    MrclSchprs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Maarssen (NL)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    145
    Please keep in mind that the OM-1 hit the market in 1972. The MX (1976) and XD-11 (1977) were introduced somewhat later. At the time of introduction the OM-1 was unique in its size, a uniqueness that disappeared when other manufacturers introduced similar sized bodies.

    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    As a Leica owner and user of (but not owner) of various Olympus OMs - I personally do not see the similarity. Not anymore than a Pentax MX or Minolta XD-11 being a "small SLR."

  10. #40
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Yeah well I'm just saying its a small SLR. Technically the Nikon F is derived from their rangefinder line and could be argued to be more similar to a Leica as a result. Personally I'm not making a weak argument like that.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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