Originally Posted by johnsonwoan
Hi WT21, thanks!
How about comparing this with the 45mm f1.8? Does OM50mm f1.8 have the same sharpness as the 45mm?
I've never had the OM 50/1.8. I've had FD, OM (2.0), Takumar, Rokkor and some other legacy 50s. All of them were designed for film, in a different time, with different rear coatings than modern lenses. Light comes off silicon sensors much harder than film, and bounces around inside the adapters, and off the back lens element. This creates ghosting/flare (white bleed -- whatever it's called) when wide open on just about every legacy lens I have ever seen. The 45/1.8 was designed for a silicon sensor, and will not exhibit this.
Different legacy lenses are more soft wide open than others. Remember, some of these were developed in the 70s, when "soft focus" was a big hit. So, old Takumar and Rokkors (two that come to mind) seem to do this the most. OM and FD less so. I haven't used Nikons.
But all of them will exhibit this ghosting/flare/white bleed in bright and high contrast situations, forcing you to stop down up to a full stop. The 45/1.8 won't require that.
So, that's the trade-off. Soft a bit, and requiring a little stop down vs. $300+. I don't shoot 50mm that often, so I have an FD 50mm 1.4, that settles down around 2.0. I've owned the 45/1.8 twice now, and just don't use it enough to justify the cost.
FWIW -- I find the OM lenses to be sharp but lacking the color and contrast on FD lenses. The OMs (and Takumars) have much smoother focusing rings than FDs. So, there's another trade-off. Takumars are an absolute treasure to MF. OM isn't too far behind, but I stick with the FD for color and contrast, and a few frustrating moments here and there when focusing.
Good luck and happy shooting!