Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FluffPuppy wrote:

OK, as I said "I doubt there were significant changes"...so it would be a matter of interpretation as to "significance"


Isn't it always Wink . I do agree that this particular discussion on which version being the best has probably been done before on many occasions for this lens and also probably more than the image quality difference warrants for that matter.
It is probably not much different to a discussion if a SMC takumar is better than a Super-Multi-Coated takumar or something like that.

Edit: Sure the changes are probably from a financial perspective, however this can of course also have optical repercussions.

Also please humor us if we want to have a discussion on a cheap lens, as far as I know there is no rule against it here and considering the constant attempts to track back manufacturers of lenses like for instance the Chinon/Revuenon/Tomioka discussion that pops up from time to time, this is also not uncommon.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ymmot wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:

OK, as I said "I doubt there were significant changes"...so it would be a matter of interpretation as to "significance"


Isn't it always Wink . I do agree that this particular discussion on which version being the best has probably been done before on many occasions for this lens and also probably more than the image quality difference warrants for that matter.
It is probably not much different to a discussion if a SMC takumar is better than a Super-Multi-Coated takumar or something like that.

Edit: Sure the changes are probably from a financial perspective, however this can of course also have optical repercussions.

Also please humor us if we want to have a discussion on a cheap lens, as far as I know there is no rule against it here and considering the constant attempts to track back manufacturers of lenses like for instance the Chinon/Revuenon/Tomioka discussion that pops up from time to time, this is also not uncommon.


Yes, but the history of the variants of a complex, expensive lens is far more interesting, such as the evolution of the 180mm Elmarit-R from 1966 to the APO version in 2000 or so. The changes are dramatic and significant.

But do not discount the ingenuity of the Japanese to make something cheaper and better. I think that's what we may have here.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FluffPuppy wrote:
RioRico wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
The last one is suffering camera shake, if it helps to understand the lens' performance. The 1/50 second shutter speed isn't enough handheld on your crop sensor Canon EOS. For a good chance of a shake free shot you will need to use the following formula:

(Focal length * sensor crop factor)

In this case = 50 * 1.6 = 80 = 1/80th second.

That might suffice for 'acceptable' handheld shots. For SHARP shots, use a much faster shutter, at least 5x (2.3 stops) the formula results. So minimum shutter for a 50mm lens would be 1/(FL*CF*5)= 1/(50*1.6*5)= 1/400 second.

What's my basis? In Ansel Adams' THE CAMERA he writes of using a 50mm lens on a 135/FF camera handheld with the 1/FL rule, shooting at 1/50 second, but did NOT get SHARP shots until he got to 1/250 second. Apply the 1.6x CF and we're at 1/400 as calculated.

This ROT (rule of thumb) applies to non-stabilized optics. With a Pentax or Sony dSLRs' IBIS (in-body image stabilization) those 2.3 stops are regained and the 1/(FL*CF) ROT can be used for SHARP images.


Nonsense. It depends on the skill of the user. Adams doesn't know what he is talking about there.


+1, 90% of my shots are pin sharp using the standard calculation and I'm a really fussy pixel peeper Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:
RioRico wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
The last one is suffering camera shake, if it helps to understand the lens' performance. The 1/50 second shutter speed isn't enough handheld on your crop sensor Canon EOS. For a good chance of a shake free shot you will need to use the following formula:

(Focal length * sensor crop factor)

In this case = 50 * 1.6 = 80 = 1/80th second.

That might suffice for 'acceptable' handheld shots. For SHARP shots, use a much faster shutter, at least 5x (2.3 stops) the formula results. So minimum shutter for a 50mm lens would be 1/(FL*CF*5)= 1/(50*1.6*5)= 1/400 second.

What's my basis? In Ansel Adams' THE CAMERA he writes of using a 50mm lens on a 135/FF camera handheld with the 1/FL rule, shooting at 1/50 second, but did NOT get SHARP shots until he got to 1/250 second. Apply the 1.6x CF and we're at 1/400 as calculated.

This ROT (rule of thumb) applies to non-stabilized optics. With a Pentax or Sony dSLRs' IBIS (in-body image stabilization) those 2.3 stops are regained and the 1/(FL*CF) ROT can be used for SHARP images.


Nonsense. It depends on the skill of the user. Adams doesn't know what he is talking about there.


+1, 90% of my shots are pin sharp using the standard calculation and I'm a really fussy pixel peeper Laughing


When I was younger and steadier-of-hand I could do even better than the 'standard' formula. I have hand-held my 560mm Leitz Telyt at 1/30 sec and got sharp shots. It takes practice and knowledge of technique, but it can be done.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FluffPuppy wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
jito wrote:


I looked at the lens today, I was wrong. It doesn't say 'made in japan', it only says japan in the front along with the specs. It appears that the best ones say 'made in japan' near the mount.


Anyone confirm this as one of mine doesn't mention the word "Japan" on the dust cover in the front, but "made in Japan" near the lens mount...the other lens says "made in Japan" on the dust cover on the front but only "Japan" near the lens mount. Confused


The site of production should have no bearing on the quality of the lens. It seems hard to believe so much enthusiasm can be generated over a basic normal lens. LOL

We all know such lenses are quite decent; no surprise there.


Well some sites mention the "made in Japan" variant, erm now why would they bother Rolling Eyes

http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=245&Itemid=97


from Dnas erm nick rings a bell

There are 5 different varieties of this lens, in order of release (exact wording shown).

(Silvernose)
OLYMPUS OM-SYSTEM F.ZUIKO AUTO-S 1:1,8 f=50mm

(Blacknose)
OLYMPUS OM-SYSTEM F.ZUIKO AUTO-S 1:1,8 f=50mm

(Blacknose)
OLYMPUS OM-SYSTEM ZUIKO MC AUTO-S 1:1,8 f=50mm Japan

(Blacknose)
OLYMPUS OM-SYSTEM ZUIKO AUTO-S 50mm 1:1,8 made in Japan

Plus one other which I think, fits in the middle of those four. I think the first two have the same optical formula, while the last two are different. The last one with "made in japan", is the best.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You missed the first of the varieties (rare and probably purely cosmetic):

(Silvernose)
OLYMPUS M-SYSTEM F.ZUIKO AUTO-S 1:1,8 f=50mm

All varieties with F.Zuiko indeed seem to have a different optical scheme.

The last two versions seem to encompass serials 3.xxx.xxx, 4.xxx.xxx and 5.xxx.xxx (last of which seems to be the 'made in Japan' version). Maybe there are two subversions of the blacknose MC version?

Sadly the olympus.dementia.org seems to be out of the air, maybe the repair manuals can shed some light for those interested?
On a sidenote does anyone have access to the contents or potential new adress of that site, as I have been looking for it for some time when I needed a repair manual Sad ...

(Also I apologise when my initial comment in this tread is found offensive or out of line Embarassed )


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
http://web.archive.org/web/20090208104808/http://olympus.dementia.org/

http://olympus.dementix.org/Hardware/olympus_hw.html


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks, you are one of my heros now Very Happy .
I knew of the wayback machine, however those often have the PDF files missing.

Looking at the revisions in the repair manual there are 6 versions/revisions if you include the 'M-System' variety as separate.
There seems to be some change to the optics as well, at least in the rear group between revision 4 and 5 (last version?) the size of the rear element seems to change.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2