MarkRyan
Instagram: @MRSallee
I've become a Zuikoholic. After first getting my feet wet in manual lenses with a cheap C-mount Fujian, I've gradually learned to prefer them to modern autofocus glass. To the point that I've sold off nearly all of my native Micro 4/3 lenses and replaced them with a modest set of Olympus OMs.
Why OMs? For starters, they are 100% mechanical lenses, with no electronic functions. So on an adapter, they handle and function just as well as they did when operated on original OM cameras. The feel of a real, clicking aperture ring and the methodical process of manual focus are things I really appreciate. The metal construction and the hand feel of OM lenses is consistently stellar.
I also appreciate that OM lenses have aperture rings at the front of the lens, where some other manufacturers put them near the mount. For starters, it's nice to have consistency when moving from lens to lens in my kit, but also the arrangement avoids awkward interaction with the aperture ring when trying to mount and unmount a lens. I have an MD-mount Minolta lens with the aperture ring near the base of the lens, and it invariably gets twisted around when I'm mounting the lens. Another small consistency with OMs: Many of them have 49mm filter threads, and most that don't do have 55mm threads. So you can reasonably put together a decent kit and use the same filters on all of your lenses.
That's a boon for maintaining a compact kit. Which brings up another reason why I like OMs: They're small! Sure, once you factor in the added size of a lens adapter, they're not quite Micro 4/3 small, but if you want an adapted lens (I do) and you want it to be small (I do), OMs are a pretty good choice. If you're packing a small kit, you can use one adapter between a handful of OMs, and still realize the benefit of the small OMs which pack away tiny without adapters.
To get much smaller with my adapted lenses, I'd probably have to get rangefinder lenses, which (a) I can't afford, and (b) may have some issues with the thick filter stack on Micro 4/3 cameras. So I've read. Further, (c) with rangefinder lenses I don't have the option of using a Speed Booster to claw back some wide angle.
So OMs are reasonably-priced, not hard to find, and available in a full variety of focal lengths and specialties, including macro, telephoto, and shift lenses. They look great, they feel great, and they pack away small.
Picking a lens model
There are a bunch of online resources for discovering lenses, including the Adapted Lens Sample Image Showcase on this forum. I've got a few other resources linked below.
Something important to keep in mind when assessing image quality of these lenses via online sources is that not all copies of a given lens model are created equal. An early-model 50/1.4 might not give the same image quality of a late-model 50/1.4, so it's important to note the vintage of a lens used to evaluate IQ. Moreover, each photographer's standards for quality are different. Personally, I require a decent level of sharpness, but am happy if that sharpness is available only after a lens stopped down to f/4. I am not too picky about vignetting, chromatic aberrations, or even barrel distortion. I can correct for those in post. Your preferences may vary.
Picking a lens copy
OM lenses were manufactured for about 30 years, from 1972 to 2002. Over those years, new models were introduced, and existing models saw subtle improvements and redesigns. By my research, the latest versions of each lens are regarded as the best examples. This is a guide to identifying the vintage of Olympus's OM lenses. When I'm shopping Zuikos online, this is how I do my best to pick good copies.
Serial number
A lot of older manual lenses have serial numbers printed on the metal ring surrounding the front glass. Think of serial numbers as a counter that goes up with each new lens that's manufactured. A higher number indicates the lens was manufactured at a later date. A lower number indicates the opposite. It's the most obvious way to tell if a lens is old or not, but in practice it's not so useful.
Serial numbers are not typically actual counts, and I've read that sometimes serial numbers were reset for a given OM lens. Also worth considering that not all lenses were manufactured in similar quantities. Olympus's 50mm lenses have serial numbers that stretch into millions, while some more specialty lenses have much lower serial numbers. For instance, a 28/2 lens with a serial number of 110,000 is actually newer than a 50/1.8 lens with a serial number over 1,000,000.
So serial numbers are indicative of lens age, but don't reliably tell the whole story. The only OM Zuiko I've shopped where users consistently cite serial numbers as indicators of lens quality is the Zuiko 50/1.4. With that lens, users seem to think there was some undocumented manufacturing change for lenses after serial #1,100,000 that makes for better images. I don't have the budget to test the validity of these urban legends (but I did go out of my way to find a lens with such a serial number).
Zuiko & MC labels
The "Zuiko" marking on a lens is, in conjunction with the "MC" label, the best indicator of a lens's age. It's what I look for first.
There are, as far as I've deduced, essentially four generations of Olympus OM lenses which can be differentiated based on these two markings.
Generation 1: X.Zuiko + Silver Nose
The oldest OM lenses have a prefix letter in front of the Zuiko label, such as E.Zuiko, or H.Zuiko. The letter corresponds to the number of glass elements in the lens, which isn't that relevant to my goal. What is relevant is the simple presence of the X.prefix, as it indicates the lens is from the oldest OM lens batches. These are often also called "silver nose" lenses as the front metal ring of the lenses with X.Zuiko labels are typically chrome against the otherwise black exterior.
Generation 2: X.Zuiko + Black Nose
X.Zuiko lenses eventually shipped with "black noses" instead of silver ones. There may be some difference in lens coatings between the two generations (black noses are single coated?), but to be honest I haven't used a lens from either generation, and generally sample images I've seen from either generation are pretty soft and glowy.
Generation 3: Zuiko + MC
At some point, Olympus dropped the X.prefix and started marking their lenses with "MC," which indicates that the lens is multi-coated. "Zuiko MC" marks an improvement in the lens coatings which resist flare and ghosting, and also often improves contrast from what I've seen.
Generation 4: Zuiko
Eventually, Olympus dropped the "MC" markings on their lenses and simply labeled them "Zuiko." This marking configuration generally indicates the latest version of OM lenses. Though note that "latest" doesn't mean it's particularly new -- these lenses seem to have started appearing in the early 1980s, so one "Zuiko" may be up to 20 years older than another.
Based on online resources that indicate this last generation of Zuikos is the best, I've made a point to buy only simple Zuiko lenses. And I've been satisfied with the performance of each lens I've bought so far. I don't have the experience to confirm that these lenses are actually better than their older counterparts, but I am reasonably confident that they are -- at the very least -- newer.
Focal length label
The focal length label changed over time for some models. Older lenses are labeled "f=XXmm," where newer lenses dropped the "f=" portion. For example, "f=35mm" became simply "35mm" on later lenses.
This is useful for some lenses, where the "f=XXmm" labeling overlaps with the simple "Zuiko" label mentioned above. A "Zuiko f=35mm" lens is older than a "Zuiko 35mm" one.
Manufacture mark
The last generations of OM lenses, the ones manufactured after ~1983, have manufacture details printed on the mount bottoms. (Earlier lenses reportedly have similar markings printed on the lens barrels, under the rubber focus grips. I'm not sure how you find those without destroying the rubber.) These markings indicate three things: (1) The plant where the lens was manufactured, (2) the year the lens was manufactured, and (3) the month the lens was manufactured.
The manufacture plant isn't particularly interesting to me. The dates, however...well, that's what this post is about. The markings look like this:
PPYM
The first two letters indicate the manufacture plant (PP), the third letter indicates the manufacture year (Y), and the fourth number (or letter) represents the manufacture month (M). (Source: konrad_beck on Photo.net.)
Translating the year works like this:
A : 1981
B : 1982
C : 1983
D : 1984
E : 1985
F : 1986
G : 1987
H : 1988
I : 1989
J : 1990
K : 1991
L : 1992
M : 1993
N : 1994
O : 1995
P : 1996
Q : 1997
R : 1998
S : 1999
T : 2000
U : 2001
V : 2002
W : 2003
X : 2004
Y : 2005
Z : 2006
The month translates like this:
1 : Jan
2 : Feb
3 : Mar
4 : Apr
5 : May
6 : Jun
7 : Jul
8 : Aug
9 : Sep
A : Oct
B : Nov
C : Dec
An example from one of my lenses is the manufacture mark SAVA. I don't know anything about the manufacture plants, so the first "SA" letters don't mean anything to me. The third letter, V, indicates that the lens was manufactured in 2002 (quite late for an OM), and the last A indicates it was produced in October.
Japan / made in japan label
There's some variation in the "Japan" labeling that appears on the front of OM lenses, but I haven't noticed a pattern that helps identify a lens's vintage, at least not universally. The one lens where this labeling is -- allegedly -- important for identifying late lenses is with the simple 50/1.8 lens, where a "made in japan" (note the lowercase) indicates a late-model lens. Unfortunate for simplicity, this isn't a pattern that's repeated for other OM lens models.
Speed Booster & Fit issues
I use my OM lenses on a Speed Booster. Of course, you don't have to.
My real, honest #1 reason for using a Speed Booster is pretty dumb, but I'll say it anyway. I like that a Speed Booster is a shorter mount than a standard adapter, and it shrinks the overall package of OM lens + adapter. The visual balance on my OM-D is nicer, and the compact OM lenses still feel relatively small on the reduced-length adapter. My #2 reason is that a Speed Booster allows me to stop down my lenses and still get their original speed, which is pretty crucial. Apart from my 100/2.8, I almost never shoot my OMs wide open because the image quality improves so significantly when stopped down. My #3 reason for using a Speed Booster is the ability to get a decent wide angle out of the adapted OMs. My 24/2 on a Speed Booster, with Micro 4/3 crop factor, gives the same angle of view you'd get from a 35mm full frame shot, and that's about as wide as I like to shoot.
I've now owned two Metabones Speed Boosters for my OM lenses, both for Micro 4/3 mount. The first Speed Booster was a standard unit, and the second is the Speed Booster Ultra.
Metabones makes note on their website that not all OM lenses fit the Speed Booster, but doesn't specify which lenses are problems. What's interesting is that lenses compatible with the standard Speed Booster might not be compatible with the Ultra. For example, the OM 24/2.8 fits fine on the standard unit, but not on my Ultra.
The fit issue comes down to little metal petals on the back of some OM lens mounts. If you examine photos of some lenses, you'll see these little petals poking out from the rear of the mount, toward the inside of the camera.
Above: Left lens, a 35/2, has no metal petals on the back. Right lens, a 24/2.8, has one large enough to prevent fitting to a Speed Booster Ultra.
These petals appear to be implemented to protect protruding rear lens elements in the event that the lens is set down on a table without the rear lens cap. (They serve no other function, as far as I know.) And these metal petals are different sizes between lens models, some lens models not having them at all. When they're long enough -- like in the case of the 24/2.8 -- the petals clash with the glass in the Speed Booster and prevent the lens from mounting.
I don't have comprehensive a list of compatible lenses, but in my experience the majority of lenses fit just fine. The problem petals seem to be implemented on the very wide OM lenses. When shopping for OM Zuikos, try to view images of the lens mounts, from a side-on view, to assess whether the petals may be large enough to pose a problem. At the very least, I can confirm that the lenses listed below fit fine on both the standard and Ultra Speed Boosters.
Looking at lens diagrams, the lenses I suspect may have an issue fitting are:
Aside from the 24/2.8, this second list is speculation -- I haven't used these lenses myself. And there may be other problem lenses I haven't identified.
As I mentioned, these metal petals help the lenses sit on a flat surface without the rear lens caps. Which sounds a pretty barbaric practice, regardless of the presence of petal kickstands. One user on YouTube successfully cut off the metal petals for his 24/2.8 in order to safely fit the lens to his Speed Booster Ultra and without disrupting any of the lens's function. So if you're open to a bit of surgery, you can probably make any OM lens work. Personally, I can't bring myself to mar an otherwise pristine lens.
Conclusion
That is, roughly, everything I know about buying OM Zuiko lenses. Of course, I use them to make actual photographs. My photos are organized by lens on my Flickr page, should you want to see what these things can do.
I love Zuikos. You might, too.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Why OMs? For starters, they are 100% mechanical lenses, with no electronic functions. So on an adapter, they handle and function just as well as they did when operated on original OM cameras. The feel of a real, clicking aperture ring and the methodical process of manual focus are things I really appreciate. The metal construction and the hand feel of OM lenses is consistently stellar.
I also appreciate that OM lenses have aperture rings at the front of the lens, where some other manufacturers put them near the mount. For starters, it's nice to have consistency when moving from lens to lens in my kit, but also the arrangement avoids awkward interaction with the aperture ring when trying to mount and unmount a lens. I have an MD-mount Minolta lens with the aperture ring near the base of the lens, and it invariably gets twisted around when I'm mounting the lens. Another small consistency with OMs: Many of them have 49mm filter threads, and most that don't do have 55mm threads. So you can reasonably put together a decent kit and use the same filters on all of your lenses.
That's a boon for maintaining a compact kit. Which brings up another reason why I like OMs: They're small! Sure, once you factor in the added size of a lens adapter, they're not quite Micro 4/3 small, but if you want an adapted lens (I do) and you want it to be small (I do), OMs are a pretty good choice. If you're packing a small kit, you can use one adapter between a handful of OMs, and still realize the benefit of the small OMs which pack away tiny without adapters.
To get much smaller with my adapted lenses, I'd probably have to get rangefinder lenses, which (a) I can't afford, and (b) may have some issues with the thick filter stack on Micro 4/3 cameras. So I've read. Further, (c) with rangefinder lenses I don't have the option of using a Speed Booster to claw back some wide angle.
So OMs are reasonably-priced, not hard to find, and available in a full variety of focal lengths and specialties, including macro, telephoto, and shift lenses. They look great, they feel great, and they pack away small.
Picking a lens model
There are a bunch of online resources for discovering lenses, including the Adapted Lens Sample Image Showcase on this forum. I've got a few other resources linked below.
Something important to keep in mind when assessing image quality of these lenses via online sources is that not all copies of a given lens model are created equal. An early-model 50/1.4 might not give the same image quality of a late-model 50/1.4, so it's important to note the vintage of a lens used to evaluate IQ. Moreover, each photographer's standards for quality are different. Personally, I require a decent level of sharpness, but am happy if that sharpness is available only after a lens stopped down to f/4. I am not too picky about vignetting, chromatic aberrations, or even barrel distortion. I can correct for those in post. Your preferences may vary.
- Mu-43: Adapted Lens Sample Image Showcase
- Unofficial Olympus Sales Information File
- Zone-10: Olympus Lens Tests
- Photozone: Lens Performance Survey
- MIR: Zuiko Lenses
Picking a lens copy
OM lenses were manufactured for about 30 years, from 1972 to 2002. Over those years, new models were introduced, and existing models saw subtle improvements and redesigns. By my research, the latest versions of each lens are regarded as the best examples. This is a guide to identifying the vintage of Olympus's OM lenses. When I'm shopping Zuikos online, this is how I do my best to pick good copies.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Serial number
A lot of older manual lenses have serial numbers printed on the metal ring surrounding the front glass. Think of serial numbers as a counter that goes up with each new lens that's manufactured. A higher number indicates the lens was manufactured at a later date. A lower number indicates the opposite. It's the most obvious way to tell if a lens is old or not, but in practice it's not so useful.
Serial numbers are not typically actual counts, and I've read that sometimes serial numbers were reset for a given OM lens. Also worth considering that not all lenses were manufactured in similar quantities. Olympus's 50mm lenses have serial numbers that stretch into millions, while some more specialty lenses have much lower serial numbers. For instance, a 28/2 lens with a serial number of 110,000 is actually newer than a 50/1.8 lens with a serial number over 1,000,000.
So serial numbers are indicative of lens age, but don't reliably tell the whole story. The only OM Zuiko I've shopped where users consistently cite serial numbers as indicators of lens quality is the Zuiko 50/1.4. With that lens, users seem to think there was some undocumented manufacturing change for lenses after serial #1,100,000 that makes for better images. I don't have the budget to test the validity of these urban legends (but I did go out of my way to find a lens with such a serial number).
Zuiko & MC labels
The "Zuiko" marking on a lens is, in conjunction with the "MC" label, the best indicator of a lens's age. It's what I look for first.
There are, as far as I've deduced, essentially four generations of Olympus OM lenses which can be differentiated based on these two markings.
Generation 1: X.Zuiko + Silver Nose
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
The oldest OM lenses have a prefix letter in front of the Zuiko label, such as E.Zuiko, or H.Zuiko. The letter corresponds to the number of glass elements in the lens, which isn't that relevant to my goal. What is relevant is the simple presence of the X.prefix, as it indicates the lens is from the oldest OM lens batches. These are often also called "silver nose" lenses as the front metal ring of the lenses with X.Zuiko labels are typically chrome against the otherwise black exterior.
Generation 2: X.Zuiko + Black Nose
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
X.Zuiko lenses eventually shipped with "black noses" instead of silver ones. There may be some difference in lens coatings between the two generations (black noses are single coated?), but to be honest I haven't used a lens from either generation, and generally sample images I've seen from either generation are pretty soft and glowy.
Generation 3: Zuiko + MC
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
At some point, Olympus dropped the X.prefix and started marking their lenses with "MC," which indicates that the lens is multi-coated. "Zuiko MC" marks an improvement in the lens coatings which resist flare and ghosting, and also often improves contrast from what I've seen.
Generation 4: Zuiko
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Eventually, Olympus dropped the "MC" markings on their lenses and simply labeled them "Zuiko." This marking configuration generally indicates the latest version of OM lenses. Though note that "latest" doesn't mean it's particularly new -- these lenses seem to have started appearing in the early 1980s, so one "Zuiko" may be up to 20 years older than another.
Based on online resources that indicate this last generation of Zuikos is the best, I've made a point to buy only simple Zuiko lenses. And I've been satisfied with the performance of each lens I've bought so far. I don't have the experience to confirm that these lenses are actually better than their older counterparts, but I am reasonably confident that they are -- at the very least -- newer.
Focal length label
The focal length label changed over time for some models. Older lenses are labeled "f=XXmm," where newer lenses dropped the "f=" portion. For example, "f=35mm" became simply "35mm" on later lenses.
This is useful for some lenses, where the "f=XXmm" labeling overlaps with the simple "Zuiko" label mentioned above. A "Zuiko f=35mm" lens is older than a "Zuiko 35mm" one.
Manufacture mark
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
The last generations of OM lenses, the ones manufactured after ~1983, have manufacture details printed on the mount bottoms. (Earlier lenses reportedly have similar markings printed on the lens barrels, under the rubber focus grips. I'm not sure how you find those without destroying the rubber.) These markings indicate three things: (1) The plant where the lens was manufactured, (2) the year the lens was manufactured, and (3) the month the lens was manufactured.
The manufacture plant isn't particularly interesting to me. The dates, however...well, that's what this post is about. The markings look like this:
PPYM
The first two letters indicate the manufacture plant (PP), the third letter indicates the manufacture year (Y), and the fourth number (or letter) represents the manufacture month (M). (Source: konrad_beck on Photo.net.)
Translating the year works like this:
A : 1981
B : 1982
C : 1983
D : 1984
E : 1985
F : 1986
G : 1987
H : 1988
I : 1989
J : 1990
K : 1991
L : 1992
M : 1993
N : 1994
O : 1995
P : 1996
Q : 1997
R : 1998
S : 1999
T : 2000
U : 2001
V : 2002
W : 2003
X : 2004
Y : 2005
Z : 2006
The month translates like this:
1 : Jan
2 : Feb
3 : Mar
4 : Apr
5 : May
6 : Jun
7 : Jul
8 : Aug
9 : Sep
A : Oct
B : Nov
C : Dec
An example from one of my lenses is the manufacture mark SAVA. I don't know anything about the manufacture plants, so the first "SA" letters don't mean anything to me. The third letter, V, indicates that the lens was manufactured in 2002 (quite late for an OM), and the last A indicates it was produced in October.
Japan / made in japan label
There's some variation in the "Japan" labeling that appears on the front of OM lenses, but I haven't noticed a pattern that helps identify a lens's vintage, at least not universally. The one lens where this labeling is -- allegedly -- important for identifying late lenses is with the simple 50/1.8 lens, where a "made in japan" (note the lowercase) indicates a late-model lens. Unfortunate for simplicity, this isn't a pattern that's repeated for other OM lens models.
Speed Booster & Fit issues
I use my OM lenses on a Speed Booster. Of course, you don't have to.
My real, honest #1 reason for using a Speed Booster is pretty dumb, but I'll say it anyway. I like that a Speed Booster is a shorter mount than a standard adapter, and it shrinks the overall package of OM lens + adapter. The visual balance on my OM-D is nicer, and the compact OM lenses still feel relatively small on the reduced-length adapter. My #2 reason is that a Speed Booster allows me to stop down my lenses and still get their original speed, which is pretty crucial. Apart from my 100/2.8, I almost never shoot my OMs wide open because the image quality improves so significantly when stopped down. My #3 reason for using a Speed Booster is the ability to get a decent wide angle out of the adapted OMs. My 24/2 on a Speed Booster, with Micro 4/3 crop factor, gives the same angle of view you'd get from a 35mm full frame shot, and that's about as wide as I like to shoot.
I've now owned two Metabones Speed Boosters for my OM lenses, both for Micro 4/3 mount. The first Speed Booster was a standard unit, and the second is the Speed Booster Ultra.
Metabones makes note on their website that not all OM lenses fit the Speed Booster, but doesn't specify which lenses are problems. What's interesting is that lenses compatible with the standard Speed Booster might not be compatible with the Ultra. For example, the OM 24/2.8 fits fine on the standard unit, but not on my Ultra.
The fit issue comes down to little metal petals on the back of some OM lens mounts. If you examine photos of some lenses, you'll see these little petals poking out from the rear of the mount, toward the inside of the camera.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Above: Left lens, a 35/2, has no metal petals on the back. Right lens, a 24/2.8, has one large enough to prevent fitting to a Speed Booster Ultra.
These petals appear to be implemented to protect protruding rear lens elements in the event that the lens is set down on a table without the rear lens cap. (They serve no other function, as far as I know.) And these metal petals are different sizes between lens models, some lens models not having them at all. When they're long enough -- like in the case of the 24/2.8 -- the petals clash with the glass in the Speed Booster and prevent the lens from mounting.
I don't have comprehensive a list of compatible lenses, but in my experience the majority of lenses fit just fine. The problem petals seem to be implemented on the very wide OM lenses. When shopping for OM Zuikos, try to view images of the lens mounts, from a side-on view, to assess whether the petals may be large enough to pose a problem. At the very least, I can confirm that the lenses listed below fit fine on both the standard and Ultra Speed Boosters.
- 24/2.0
- 28/2.0
- 35/2.0
- 50/1.4
- 100/2.8
Looking at lens diagrams, the lenses I suspect may have an issue fitting are:
- 16/3.5
- 18/3.5
- 21/3.5
- 24/2.8
- 28/3.5
- 35/2.8
Aside from the 24/2.8, this second list is speculation -- I haven't used these lenses myself. And there may be other problem lenses I haven't identified.
As I mentioned, these metal petals help the lenses sit on a flat surface without the rear lens caps. Which sounds a pretty barbaric practice, regardless of the presence of petal kickstands. One user on YouTube successfully cut off the metal petals for his 24/2.8 in order to safely fit the lens to his Speed Booster Ultra and without disrupting any of the lens's function. So if you're open to a bit of surgery, you can probably make any OM lens work. Personally, I can't bring myself to mar an otherwise pristine lens.
Conclusion
That is, roughly, everything I know about buying OM Zuiko lenses. Of course, I use them to make actual photographs. My photos are organized by lens on my Flickr page, should you want to see what these things can do.
I love Zuikos. You might, too.
Last edited:
