Zuiko OM 24mm f2.8 vs Lumix 25mm f1.4

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by silver92b, Dec 17, 2013.

  1. silver92b

    silver92b Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 7, 2013
    Atlanta, GA
    Out of curiosity I decided to try a simple shot with each lens at the same f stop, ISO 200 on a tripod. Clearly the IQ of the native lens is better, but the old Zuiko lens does a passable job.. I focused on the nearest rim of the cup. Of course, the 24mm at f2.8 is going to be softer than the 25mm at f2.8..... Perhaps I'll try again with both lenses stopped down a bit more.


    • Like Like x 1
  2. fluberman

    fluberman Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 19, 2012
    The first picture is the 25mm and the second one is 24mm ?
  3. silver92b

    silver92b Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 7, 2013
    Atlanta, GA
    Yes, that's correct.
  4. sLorenzi

    sLorenzi Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 15, 2010
    Which body did you use?
  5. silver92b

    silver92b Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 7, 2013
    Atlanta, GA
    Sorry for the lack of detail, I shoot with an E-M5. The shots were done at night inside under a mixture of fluorescent, LED, and incandescent lights. I cropped the shots but did not develop them in any other way
    I used MF and aperture priority mode. Tripod and 2 second delay shutter. The camera chose the shutter speed, white balance, etc.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. silver92b

    silver92b Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 7, 2013
    Atlanta, GA
    Here are 2 shots that might be a more "fair" comparison. At f5.6, the sharpness of the 24mm lens might be less compromised. The shots are identically done by me. The camera did choose the shutter speed. Interestingly, the older less renders the colors much warmer. The first shot (above) is the product of the PL25mm f1.4, the second (below) is the product of the Zuiko OM 24mm f2.8


  7. svenkarma

    svenkarma Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 5, 2013
    mark evans
    Thanks for posting. You inspired me to just now run a similar test with the 25 and a MIR 35/2 + m42 adapter + c/y speed booster which turns it into about a 52/1.5. At 1.4 the Lumix does resolve detail at the point of focus (lettering on a water bottle) rather better than the MIR, but at the same time the logo on the kettle behind it was more pleasingly blurred in the MIR.

    And although I haven't done such a direct comparison between the 25 and the Zeiss Contax 50/1.7 I have, my impression is that the colour rendition of the Zeiss is sort of warmer, more involving.

    I do think the virtues of the 25 make for amazing b & w photos, but I'm really not sure it's worth the money for such a specific function.
  8. fredsh

    fredsh Mu-43 Rookie

    Mar 27, 2010
    Long Island NY
    I hope no one minds my segue in another direction, that is my OM system 75-150 zoom from the mid seventies which I recently adapted to my OM-D EM5. I was quite disappointed in the results. I wonder if anyone else has used a older zoom or long lens, and what their observations were. I should mention, that I also tried the 50mm 1.8 "normal" that I had, but that lens did preform better, but not a equal to a modern lens.
  9. mr_botak

    mr_botak Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 4, 2011
    Reading, UK
    Most of the early zooms were pretty average to start with and seem worse adapted. The primes are much better, although I've never used a 50/1.8, the 3.5 macro gives very nice results. I think the newer lenses look different to the adapted primes I have. I'd hesitate to say they were not 'equal' though - just different a different look.
  10. ornithology

    ornithology Mu-43 Regular

    Dec 21, 2013
    Vancouver, BC
    That's hard to tell from the two. When stopped down I like the Zuiko more.
  11. phrenic

    phrenic Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 13, 2010
    I have used the 75-150mm and it is pretty terrible on digital at least. Perhaps film is more forgiving.
  12. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 14, 2012
    New Mexico
    Two shots with the 75-150 OM Zuiko that I don't think are terrible at all. I always liked the lens on my OM cameras - 1, 2, 4, and 10 - and it works well on digital for me. Both of these are shot raw and developed. I don't think comparing jpegs of native to legacy lenses is quite fair. They were designed for a different medium, but with a bit of effort can be quite adaptable to digital use. Same with my 1952 Summicron - less contrast, but that is easily dealt with.


    • Like Like x 1
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.