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

Comparison - Canon FD 55mm/1.2 asph. vs Olympus OM 55mm/1.2
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:07 pm    Post subject: Comparison - Canon FD 55mm/1.2 asph. vs Olympus OM 55mm/1.2 Reply with quote
I usually don't do these comparisons, but as long i have few lenses on loan i might do comparisons (also coming is comparison between 35-70mm lenses)
camera used is Olympus E-M5, off course Smile
note: i had to re-shoot olympus bokeh and dof set, because first time around i didn't notice that lens aperture didn't close past f8, so f11 and f16 samples were same as f8. first time it was sunny, second time it was cloudy with rain so that's why there is a difference but for things shown in samples it doesn't impact results.

i didn't do any sharpening in PP, only black point and white point levels correction, and blue channel correction in night time samples to correct influence of neon lights

first: size comparison





second: bokeh comparison

f1.2 , f2 , f2.8
left canon, right olympus


f4 , f5.6 , f8
left canon, right olympus


f11 , f16
left canon, right olympus


third: depth of field comparison (on 2x crop sensor)

f1.2 , f2 , f2.8
left canon, right olympus


f4 , f5.6 , f8
left canon, right olympus


f11 , f16
left canon, right olympus


fourth: minimum focus
canon


olympus


fifth: night time use

f1.2 , f2 , f2.8
left canon, right olympus


f4 , f5.6 , f8
left canon, right olympus


f11 , f16
left canon, right olympus



conclusion:
at 1.2 olympus is considerably softer than canon fd, both in day and night time shooting. it picks sharpness and contrast up fast at f2 closing the gap to the canon fd.
both lenses give pretty thin depth of field for isolation on 2x crop sensor
olympus can focus closer than canon (45cm vs 60cm)
at night time use, both lenses at range of f2-f4 give decent shutter speed to handhold and get sharp enough results at iso 400-800 range. wide open both are soft


PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The lightning conditions seem to be different. If not, one lens is bad and it is the Olympus as the shiny reflections on the statue disappear and the image is washed.
It looks more like different lightnings and/or different exposures.

My experience with mft bodies and 35mm mf lenses shows that exposures can be very different from lens to lens and even from aperture to aperture. This is due to internal reflections and flare. That is why With mf lenses I shoot raw and ajust the brightness after.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph wrote:
The lightning conditions seem to be different. If not, one lens is bad and it is the Olympus as the shiny reflections on the statue disappear and the image is washed.
It looks more like different lightnings and/or different exposures.


as i stated at the start of the original post i had to re-shoot olympus set and it was cloudy with rain on the re-shoot while original shoot was at sunny day. anyway these comparisons are not for contrast and final result you get from each lens, for that go to my testing my lenses threads of each of these lenses

here are samples from original shoot (from f1.2 to f8 )
left canon , right olympus



Last edited by WolverineX on Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:41 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sorry , Wolverinex, I read to fast.
Different light , no conclusion. It is difficult to give an opinion . Minimum focus comparison seems to be correct.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Different light conditions render the comparison moot. Poor light makes the Olympus look poor by comparison.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Different light conditions render the comparison moot. Poor light makes the Olympus look poor by comparison.


in the second post i have put the comparison from original shoot with same light conditions


PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
you can see from the trees its different times of the year, there is quite a bit of oxidisation on the metal status!!

the canon shots show a almost polished appearance in comparison.

do you still have both lenses?


PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Layer-cake wrote:
you can see from the trees its different times of the year, there is quite a bit of oxidisation on the metal status!!

the canon shots show a almost polished appearance in comparison.

do you still have both lenses?


difference is 2 weeks. original shoot was on 9th of March, reshoot on 23rd of March this year


PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
the Olympus is tiny in comparison to the canon beast, I'm personally not a fan of Olympus as most of the lenses I have tried have a warm cast/effect to the images but is their any chance you could take pics from a more controlled environment?


PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Tue May 10, 2016 7:21 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Difficult to tell by these samples
I have both, they are very close. Based on my copies, the olympus has very good color, saturation, sharpness, espescially at f2, which might be the best lens i have. I have both FD and FL, and their colors also good. The cons is size.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
Difficult to tell by these samples
I have both, they are very close. Based on my copies, the olympus has very good color, saturation, sharpness, espescially at f2, which might be the best lens i have. I have both FD and FL, and their colors also good. The cons is size.
*
I found that old thread
The comparison is not fair: : The Canon tested is the aspherical version (the "L" version in modern canon marketing) and not the standard non aspherical version and fortunatly the canon aspherical version is better than the om non aspherical lens !

I only own the om lens : At 1,2 the lens is soft but goes very good from f:2


For info : picture taken at ~1.8


PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would be more than happy with both lenses, the second set of pictures is a far better comparison - and I think I prefer the bokeh of the Olympus. Confused The Olympus wins on close focus, and physical size. It's hard not to go for the Oly'.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bumping this thread as I just managed to snag a copy of the olympus. I got it, plus the 85mm f2, the 21mm 3.5, the 50mm 3.5 macro and a gorgeous working copy of the black body OM4 for about a fourth of the current going rate for the Canon aspherical. I am hoping to get a chance to try the kit soon. It boggles ho much the asphericals have gone up over just the few years I have been involved in this endeavor.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yup, I was surprised too, I traded my 55 Aspherical back in November 2017 for a somewhat harder to find lens (Topcor 58mm macro) with the intention to rebuy the 55 Aspherical which is relatively common, only to find out that they have taken a sudden jump in prices, there's no way I can pay the going price to replace it, so much for my completed SSC set. Yet another message from the universe telling me to keep the lenses I like.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
Yup, I was surprised too, I traded my 55 Aspherical back in November 2017 for a somewhat harder to find lens (Topcor 58mm macro)


Really?? You should have contacted me, I've two of those Topcor RE Macro 3.5/58mm lenses sitting on my shelves ... selling them here in Switzerland would probably give CHF 50.-- or so, which means I decided to keep them ...


Lightshow wrote:
with the intention to rebuy the 55 Aspherical which is relatively common, only to find out that they have taken a sudden jump in prices, there's no way I can pay the going price to replace it, so much for my completed SSC set.

Only observing local prices, I have seen that craziness spreading to other SSC lenses such as the 2.8/20mm or the 4/17mm which both sold recently in the >CHF 500.-- area. Obviously people otherwise spending their money on drinks for CHF 100.-- (or even more) are sitting at home now ?!?

Lightshow wrote:
Yet another message from the universe telling me to keep the lenses I like.

Yep, sure ... I always do Wink

S


PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
PBFACTS wrote:

The comparison is not fair: : The Canon tested is the aspherical version (the "L" version in modern canon marketing) and not the standard non aspherical version and fortunatly the canon aspherical version is better than the om non aspherical lens !


Here is a test of 3x large aperture lenses : canon ef 50mm 1.0 aspherical / nikon 58mm 1.2 aspherical / om 55mm 1.2 55mm (the old one-not the younger 50mm)

The best of the 3x is the om !!

The result of this test is interesting and, in some ways disconcerting: in fact, the Zuiko 55mm f / 1.2, the oldest of the lenses under test and without aspherical surfaces or esoteric glass, on paper should have given way to maximum openings compared to less dated competitors designed using these technologies; vice versa, the super-bright Olympus turned out to be a sound performer, outclassing the competitors in an embarrassing way precisely at the most open apertures, those used most frequently and logically for a lens of this category; its contrast at f / 1.2 and f / 2 is not exceptional but, using it digitally, you can certainly overcome the drawback and obtain very gratifying images;above all, the consistency of performance of the 55mm

Olympus impresses in all areas of the pitch and at all apertures, following the asymptote dear to the technicians of the House who talked about the "perfect" goal as it is insensitive to the diaphragmation or to the area of ​​the field taken into consideration , to be used regardless of these deadly limits.

In relation, the two prestigious lenses with which it was compared are partly downsized: very good over the whole field at f / 5.6 - 8 - 11 (apertures at which even a very cheap 50mm f / 2 works great), they show the flank to the more open diaphragms on the edges and (limited to the Noct-Nikkor) also in the intermediate zones.they show the flank to the more open apertures on the edges and (limited to the Noct-Nikkor) also in the intermediate zones.they show the flank to the more open apertures on the edges and (limited to the Noct-Nikkor) also in the intermediate zones.

It must be said, however, that the Noct-Nikkor was not designed to be an excellent generic lens for general use but only to correct the coma flare at full aperture and ensure a clear and halo-free reproduction of the bright spots on the background. black at f / 1.2, in astronomical photos or urban night shots: every other consideration and further correction has been subordinated to this prerogative, accepting, among other things, a showy field curvature that could also be the cause of the rendering edges so unsatisfactory at maximum openings (the curvature of the plane on which the image lies, if antagonistic, could have put the portion of the building into consideration out of focus) ... In fact, there are frequent reports of those who have found the best overall, in the 'generic use,the normal Nikkor AiS 50mm f / 1.2 non aspherical.

On the other hand, the Canon EF 50mm f / 1.0 L brings to the reflex system, with a retrofocal space of about 45mm, an aperture never seen before nor replicated later, addressing technical problems unknown to the designers of super-bright rangefinder. for which the constraint of the rear useful space does not exist, and probably - despite the massive application of the most advanced technology compatible with mass production - the performance of the lens is the maximum possible with such an initial aperture and the relative diameter of the lenses required; moreover, the very shallow depth of field at full aperture f / 1.0 combined with the veiling glare of spherochromatism and with the very particular blur due to the unusual pattern, give life to images with a very captivating imprint and personality,an important surplus value apart from pure resolution.

The consideration remains that both the Noct-Nikkor 58mm f / 1.2 and the Canon EF 50mm f / 1.0 L were marketed at a price corresponding to several months of an average worker and, rightly, the user would expect stratospheric performance. in all conditions, when the real "miracle" had already been to make such apertures available in the reflex system, regardless of performance; in the case of the Olympus, we find a happy combination of small size, large relative aperture and high and usable yield in almost all operating conditions which places it, together with the SMC Pentax 50mm f / 1.2, in the narrow elite of light built without compromising on the various characteristics of the image, which can also be used profitably in conventional contexts in the same way,and with the same performance, even at the edges, of a normal non-luminous one; the fact that the Zuiko 55mm f / 1.2 belongs to the first photographic system that I actually came into possession of as a teenager and that after more than thirty years of daydreaming it still proves to be a great lens with impressive performance adds also a rogue tear that seals the story in the best way.

Full test here :
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Zuiko_55mm_1,2/00_pag.htm

Last edited by PBFACTS on Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:02 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
PBFACTS wrote:
PBFACTS wrote:

The comparison is not fair: : The Canon tested is the aspherical version (the "L" version in modern canon marketing) and not the standard non aspherical version and fortunatly the canon aspherical version is better than the om non aspherical lens !


...

Full test here :
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_tecnici_fotografici.htm


First the correct link to the test (the above link links to the table of contents of Marco Cavinas "technical articles"):
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Zuiko_55mm_1,2/00_pag.htm

While I've no personal experience whatsoever with the FD 1.2/55mm ASPH or the Olympus 1.2/55mm, I can compare the Canon nFD 1.2/50mm L with the contemporary, non-aspherical Minolta MD 1.2/50mm. They are surprisingly equal ... In fact, Minolta did have some aspherical 1.2/50mm prototypes, but decided it was not worth the pain.

S


PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
test (the above link links to the table of contents of Marco Cavinas "technical articles"):
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Zuiko_55mm_1,2/00_pag.htm


Sorry for the mistake and thanks to have found it/ correct link in the post now

stevemark wrote:

While I've no personal experience whatsoever with the FD 1.2/55mm ASPH or the Olympus 1.2/55mm, I can compare the Canon nFD 1.2/50mm L with the contemporary, non-aspherical Minolta MD 1.2/50mm. They are surprisingly equal ... In fact, Minolta did have some aspherical 1.2/50mm prototypes, but decided it was not worth the pain.


The aspherical glass is THE solution to correct some defects (coma, curved field..) if the basic design is top but it does not overcome a poor/medium design ...remember the first sigma aspherical lenses which were poorer than the previous (just before : the alpha/beta.. series -not the old scrap xq-) non aspherical counterparts.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1