Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Adapted Lens Sample Image Showcase' started by Lawrence A., Apr 28, 2013.
PLEASE ADD YOUR OWN IMAGES TO THE THREAD
Shot on the E-M5
Here's one from the pond on the main campus of the University of New Mexico. I focused on the right back duck, before Mr. Foreground came swimming in, and the DOF is not deep enough to get him really sharp. OK at smaller sizes, he really starts to be noticeably out of focus in larger versions.
I love wisteria, and this huge and luxuriously flowering one was hanging over the water, which acted almost like seamless. A nice color combination. It's hard to beat Spring!
Olympus OM 200mm f4
I think it's a pretty good lens, taken with my EPL-1
Olympus OM 200mm f4.0
I noticed a remark that there were very few images using this lens. Also, some references to the OM 150-75mm f4.0 zoom.
Here is a picture taken this morning of my neighbor’s house which is about 250 meters away. EP-3, OM 200mm f4.0 @ f5.6, 1/250 at ISO 320 on a tripod with ISS OFF.
Image & 100% crop
I like this lens a lot. I use the 300 f4.5 more, for birding, but the 200 does very nicely. I usually have to help out the D-Max to get decent contrast, but that's preferable to having things block up. I changed hosting sites, so I just reposted some of the images I put up to start the thread.
All of them are jpegs from 16 bit tiffs developed from raw in Lightroom. I find it easier to deal in Lightroom with the some of the issues that arise in using legacy glass, like contrast, especially d-max, different sharpening requirements, and chromatic aberration, often an issue when birds are the subject.
Thanks for contributing, Mike and SWGLERA. The fact that you can now get this lens dirt cheap is nothing against it. It is capable of producing some very good results.
Thanks for re-posting your pictures and I can see you have made some dramatic improvements.
I did not use any post processing; these are jpegs straight out of the camera. At the same time I took some using the 75-150 f4 zoom which is a tad softer, as one might expect from a zoom. I will post them if I can find an appropriate thread.
I have had these lenses since my OM-1 days – many moons ago. Kodachrome brought out the best of just about every lens so I was a little disappointed when I first used them on the EP-3. Generally, I use Photoshop to make modest improvements, but I’m not much of a hand at post processing – I guess it’s not my thing.
My new EM-1 is due to arrive on Tuesday and I will see how they fair on the new gadget.
I don't think I had this stopped down any further than 5.6 the whole time (was kind of getting used to it), CA is pretty intense around 4 > 5.6, seems to go away by around 8. E-P5, shot as raw, processed in olympus viewer 3 to pretty much go as default SOOC jpgs (0 sharp, 0 contrast, 0 saturation, natural, normal).
^ absolutely kicking myself at missing this honeyeater that was practically on top of me, sigh.
may possibly not actually be a good idea to just throw it into the end for infinity focus
This is seriously not bad for $69aud including a thrown in Hoya UV filter, and with the original sliding hood and caps, with no real visible wear on it at all. Can't wait to try throwing some stuff on it later (diopter, tubes, macro focus teleconverter).
Very nice price piggsy - and great pics.
I'm seriously enjoying the hell out of this lens - just got back from shooting with it some more. Man, there is something about what comes out of it this thing. I've since lost the page that went into which version is which, but I believe this is the single coated version of the lens (the markings are SN 118936, Japan, Olympus, OM-System, E.Zuiko, Auto-T, 1:4, f=200mm).
Some thoughts -
Number 1: This seems to hold up so, so well on digital, and provided you shoot with it in broad daylight, even the crummy focus peaking on the E-P5 is more than enough to get accurate enough at f8.
Number 2: it's weird how much what might technically be a problem (CA and other occasionally funny looking highlights) actually seems to add to an image sometimes.
Number 3: possibly related to #2, it seems to almost go out of my vocabulary to even describe what's happening with it - like, if you zoom in super close, the saturation, the rolloff from high to low contrast, detail, etc, all have things in them that you could pick apart as being less than great or inaccurate, but they seem to add up in a way the more technically "accurate" 60mm 2.8 doesn't. It somehow gives off an impression sometimes that there's more there, than there really is.
Seriously all those above are basically me trying to show off what it looks like at its ugliest - wide open, into stuff that makes it freak out, absolutely no PP of any kind other than what the camera does at defaults, and some of them look ... actually quite good.
Some more samples with PP from yesterday.
Couple bird shots salvaged from minus ... several EVs -
Quite pleased with these. Was in two minds whether to actually leave the red/orange CA (was kind of more like, flare that started generating its own CA) on these, since it made them look like they were glowing, but took it out anyway:
Is that actually all that sharp? Not ... really? But somehow it manages to suggest more detail than is really there and - while it is far from the best picture of a duck ever taken - I really like what it does with the reflected light from one illuminating the feathers of another.
Haven't touched colours at all other than CA removal (again just natural mode from camera / 0 sat). Makes me very curious to see how the 90 and 100 f2 OM lenses handle, seem to remember a few people saying the 90 f2 was the thing to have for close focus work on flowers and the 100 for portraits.
Quite like how it handles sunlight through leaves -
Here's what a plane looks like (note there was no particular attempt to get in a good position to take this, and no PP, it was just overhead on departure) if you actually manage to focus it correctly -
I'm more inclined to think it's the adapter (the cheapest possible one ) messing up infinity focus than the lens. Luckily other than that it seems to do an alright job actually holding the lens on.
Very nice. I've found that it is easy to deal with the CA from this lens in lightroom, or any other color fringing. For a lens that presently sells dirt cheap, I think it can produce some really nice results on digital cameras. I used it with the Olympus 2X telephoto adapter, but then the color fringing really starts to get out of hand. Nice work!
Are you sure you won't be getting an Olympus mount Speedbooster piggsy?
I'm actually really annoyed about the situation with that! My plan was to try and get a single FD mount speedbooster together, but I googled around and found there's no OM > FD converter due to the dimensions clashing, but apparently it isn't that much worse than taking nickon f to FD - 4mm or so space difference. Maybe I can try and convince someone to make one