This is probably not much of a revelation but after going through a bunch of different adapted lenses I find that I quite like OM lenses. It's funny to me because I started with OM lenses then made my way through Konica, Pentax (Super Tak and K mount), Canon FD with a few Pen-F and FSU lenses thrown in. After all that I ended up with a 50/1.4 (over 1 million serial), 50/1.8 MIJ, 24/2.8 and 100/2.8. I know there are much better lenses out there but I find that I am pretty happy with the images I am getting. Maybe I'm just lacking in any sort of discrimination but I think these lenses are probably way better than I will ever be. View attachment 172214
Zuiko lenses generally had a very good reputation. I have even seen people describe them as the Japanese leica! K
I don't think I went through nearly as many as you Dixeyk, but I had a similar experience. Rokkor, FD (nice lenses, but heavy and terrible mounts), SuperTak back to OM. 50/2.0 macro + 100/2.8 (though I also kept the Fujian CCTV, because of it's unique bokeh and the Rokinon just because of it's price/speed combination)
I can't (hand on heart) say that my OM lenses take better images than my Canon new FDs, but I can (hand on heart) say that they look and feel a step above. While the Canons are utilitarian and business-like, the Zuikos will have you absently twisting the focus barrel and clicking the aperture ring for no other reason than it feels good. Worth the (slightly higher) price of admission. http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac33/ttlonline/m43/P1020873.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"> Olympus vs Canon <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/55915417@N08/5706790278/" title="OEP1-P4232511-PR Olympus Pen E-P1 Brisbane - Urban by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr">[ATTACH=full]172222[/ATTACH]"1024" height="1024" alt="OEP1-P4232511-PR Olympus Pen E-P1 Brisbane - Urban"></a> 50mm f1.8 <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/55915417@N08/5871888990/" title="PGH1-P1020701-PR Panasonic Lumix GH1 Brisbane - Street by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr">[ATTACH=full]172223[/ATTACH]"1024" height="683" alt="PGH1-P1020701-PR Panasonic Lumix GH1 Brisbane - Street"></a> 28mm f2 <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/55915417@N08/5286463501/" title="C500D-IMG_3108-PR Canon EOS 500D Brisbane by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr">[ATTACH=full]172224[/ATTACH]"1024" height="683" alt="C500D-IMG_3108-PR Canon EOS 500D Brisbane"></a> 28mm f3.5 <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/55915417@N08/5887913414/" title="PGH1-P1020800-PR Panasonic Lumix GH1 Brisbane - Urban by Nic (Luckypenguin), on Flickr">[ATTACH=full]172225[/ATTACH]"1024" height="683" alt="PGH1-P1020800-PR Panasonic Lumix GH1 Brisbane - Urban"></a> 50mm f1.4
I haven't tried any other lenses either - I bought one adapter and I'm sticking with it, but I really love the Olympus primes. Sharp, clean images with nice bokeh. The 50mm 1.8 has become a favorite of mine.
The 24/2.8 is a great lens. This is from an e-520 I had for a while {} Spiky plant thing by Mark Bowerman, on Flickr
I think that sums it up quite nicely. Even beyond the performance, it is the tactile quality of the lenses that appeals. I'm glad you like it! Sadly it is not 100% gorgeous on the inside with a little bit of fungus in there. Still works nicely, though. I'd like to try an OM24/2.8 if I found one at the right price but they hold their value quite nicely.
The 24/2.8 is a pretty nice lens. Very sharp with terrific OOF backgrounds. It's also quite small. I use as my MF normal lens. I find the color however very different from the 50/1.4. It's much warmer (or the 50/1.4 is cooler if you prefer).
Interesting. I hadn't really paid to much attention to the difference in colour response between my older lenses. There's obviously nothing too extreme if I hadn't really noticed so far, but you've got me intrigued. BTW, I'd be lying if I said that the adapter combination above of the black MMF-2 and silver OM adapter wasn't chosen for aesthetic reasons
Yesterday I shot a few images of a Yucca flower stock in my front yard (no more than a few minutes apart) it was that nice golden light at the end of the day and I was shocked at how different they were. The 24/2.8 was a lot more yellowish. It wasn't objectionable in any way bit definitely noticeable. I'll see if I can dig them up and post samples.
I had a "radioactive" collapsible Leitz Summicron which actually looked yellow to the eye. Now that was a real tactile experience. 300+g of brass and glass. I don't think I ever used it for colour though. It was a killer black and white lens.
Well, I just had to try. Yes, definitely a warm lens. 24/2.8 on left, kit zoom at about the same fl on right.
