Zuiko 50mm F1.4 vintage vs digital

I have Zuiko, Rokkor and FD f1.4's and of them I'd probably place the Rokkor first and the Zuiko last but with them all f1.4 isn't going to compete with a competent modern f1.4 and when I compared these lenses to my Sony 55mm f1.8 it just highlighted the difference between an old mass market lens and a modern higher end of the consumer market lens.

Generally I think that these old lenses are perfectly fine for whole image shots when viewing normally and even stand up well to pixel peeping in the centre-ish part of the frame at normal apertures of something like f5.6-8 or so but the differences to modern lenses will be apparent if you look closely across the frame and especially at wider apertures.

I think that you have to be careful with f1.4 and choose your subject and its background well :D
 
woof woof said:
I have Zuiko, Rokkor and FD f1.4's and of them I'd probably place the Rokkor first and the Zuiko last but with them all f1.4 isn't going to compete with a competent modern f1.4 and when I compared these lenses to my Sony 55mm f1.8 it just highlighted the difference between an old mass market lens and a modern higher end of the consumer market lens.

Generally I think that these old lenses are perfectly fine for whole image shots when viewing normally and even stand up well to pixel peeping in the centre-ish part of the frame at normal apertures of something like f5.6-8 or so but the differences to modern lenses will be apparent if you look closely across the frame and especially at wider apertures.

I think that you have to be careful with f1.4 and choose your subject and its background well :D
Click to expand...

It is mostly to do with choice of vintage lens as well. You are talking about a vast wealth of different brands and models, and some of the rarer ones are quite fine indeed. I've used so many vintage lenses on vintage cameras and modern cameras, that some of the older glass really stands up to the modern stuff. It still has a vintage *feel* when you look at it, but to me that is an important difference. The point of this review was to show the difference of both with only this particular lens, but I have a bunch of reviews coming out with much stronger results of vintage lenses on digital cameras.

What I like about this lens, is it has quite the dreamy look when it has been snowing or is misty. But this is not a lens I'd use on a day-to-day basis on a digital camera.

Cheers for your input :)
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
..when I compared these lenses to my Sony 55mm f1.8 it just highlighted the difference between an old mass market lens and a modern higher end of the consumer market lens.
Click to expand...

I do have to question whether a £700 lens is really a 'consumer' lens (even "high end") though? The majority of people who shoot with them would probably be equally pleased with the results from the FE 50/1.8, especially if the camera/lens is being used for general walkabout/record shots. I've used the OM Zuiko 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 for a long time as well and the results they both deliver are excellent when used correctly. I agree that AF is nice to have for grab shots and that, in adverse conditions, older lenses will generally flare more, but for around £600 less than the FE 55/1.8 I think it's difficult to rule out the Zuiko.

1) Taken on my old NEX5 with the OM Zuiko 1.4

Sony NEX - Tokina 80-200 F4 / OM Zuiko 50 F1.4 by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

2) Taken on my A6000 with the Zuiko 50/1.8 (which is a £15 lens)

Hayley and Chloe at Parkgate by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I'd say... Yes :D and while that's that's by my standards there's plently of people on this forum spending on bodies and lenses at the higher end of the consumer market.

I like old lenses and yes they give goid results but IMO they can't live with a good modern lens towards thevedges. Most ordinary people will not notice but we're not ordinary, are we...
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I'd say... Yes :D and while that's that's by my standards there's plently of people on this forum spending on bodies and lenses at the higher end of the consumer market.

I like old lenses and yes they give goid results but IMO they can't live with a good modern lens towards thevedges. Most ordinary people will not notice but we're not ordinary, are we...
Click to expand...

I don't know, I would rather use a vintage lens on my vintage cameras :p

I see where you going with it, and good on you for putting you opinion out there. Always good to get different though and feelings in the mix.

Have you tried the Zuiko 28mm F2? Beautiful lens :)
 
Last edited:
Slyelessar said:
I don't know, I would rather use a vintage lens on my vintage cameras :p

I see where you going with it, and good on you for putting you opinion out there. Always good to get different though and feelings in the mix.

Have you tried the Zuiko 28mm F2? Beautiful lens :)
Click to expand...

What vintage camera are you using?

I stuck with film for a while after everyone else was going digital but there was a definite drop in the quality of prints I was getting back and I assumed it was because they were cutting costs to compete with digital. After one last disastrous lot of prints that went back and back and back again I just gave up and reluctantly went digital, but I wouldn't go back now :D
 
I recently picked up a FDn 50mm f/1.2 :cool: after searching a lot for a reasonably priced zuiko 50mm/1.2 :(. zuiko was a good £125+ more expensive. It'd pretty cool if you could add that your comparison :D
 
woof woof said:
What vintage camera are you using?

I stuck with film for a while after everyone else was going digital but there was a definite drop in the quality of prints I was getting back and I assumed it was because they were cutting costs to compete with digital. After one last disastrous lot of prints that went back and back and back again I just gave up and reluctantly went digital, but I wouldn't go back now :D
Click to expand...

I have lots of different vintage cameras for different things. I shoot street photography on an OM-1 at the moment.

I use both film and digital, mainly because imo until recently there hasn't been much difference in quality, and I like using both in my workflow.

I know the Sony fan boys will spring, but I haven't found much interest or joy when using their stuff up to this point. Other people are getting good results from them, and good on them.
 
nandbytes said:
I recently picked up a FDn 50mm f/1.2 :cool: after searching a lot for a reasonably priced zuiko 50mm/1.2 :(. zuiko was a good £125+ more expensive. It'd pretty cool if you could add that your comparison :D
Click to expand...

I am planning on getting there at some point :) keep your eyes peeled next couple of months!
 
Well you are in London, it'd pretty nice if we could compare the two :D

I know a place selling a copy of zuiko 50mm/1.2 for £350 if you are interested ;)
 
nandbytes said:
Well you are in London, it'd pretty nice if we could compare the two :D

I know a place selling a copy of zuiko 50mm/1.2 for £350 if you are interested ;)
Click to expand...

Interesting. I am interested, however it would have to wait until pay day.

I want to compare that lens at some point.
 
Slyelessar said:
I am planning on getting there at some point :) keep your eyes peeled next couple of months!
Click to expand...

Are you actually in Carshalton? As it happens, that's where I live.

If you fancied trying the OM 50/1.4 on an A7, it might be interesting to meet up and let you have a play with full frame digital. FD is more my thing, but I've a few OM lenses, together with an OM-1 and 2 and, importantly, an OM-E mount adapter.

Spygenius by -cybertect-

Carshalton Environmental Fair: Canon T70 with FDn 24mm f/2.8 and Kodak BW400CN :)
 
I am not far from Carlshalton (15min drive) :LOL:

Would be interesting to try your FD lenses on my A7RII :ROFLMAO:
especially compare that 55mm/1.2 against my 50mm/1.2. I had the non-asph version which I had to return because it had fungus.
 
stevelmx5 said:
Who looks at the edges of the frame at F1.4? If you are, you're really not looking in the right place :0)
Click to expand...
If you have access to old and new lenses shoot with them and assess the results and if you can only see that newer lenses are better at the edges at f1.4 you've got some very good old lenses and some crap newer ones :D Or maybe you're just sensible, many of us are not and look too closely.
 
Slyelessar said:
I to am also not far from Carlshalton haha.

I was always put off by the 55mm F1.2 because of the thorium coatings.
Click to expand...

AFAIK FD 55/1.2s never had thoriated elements (though the 1971 FL 58/1.2 did).

My 1977 55/1.2 Asph certainly isn't. The glass is clear, unlike my breechlock FD 35/2, which is distinctly yellow. I treat it as a built in yellow filter for b/w film.

They're all pretty safe as long as you don't grind up the glass and eat it.

Anyhoo - I feel a mini TP meet coming on... :)
 
Slyelessar said:
I know the Sony fan boys will spring, but I haven't found much interest or joy when using their stuff up to this point. Other people are getting good results from them, and good on them.
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll find many Sony fan boys on this site and I'm certainly not one, I'm brand agnostic. Fact is that if you want ff and a csc in one camera Sony is the only player at the mo and for anyone wanting to use old lenses on a digital body they're worth a look as the old lenses will behave better on the ff sensor simply because you need less magnification. My old lenses work much better on my ff A7 than on mft.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I don't think you'll find many Sony fan boys on this site and I'm certainly not one, I'm brand agnostic. Fact is that if you want ff and a csc in one camera Sony is the only player at the mo and for anyone wanting to use old lenses on a digital body they're worth a look as the old lenses will behave better on the ff sensor simply because you need less magnification. My old lenses work much better on my ff A7 than on mft.
Click to expand...

+1, some lenses like my OM 21mm f3.5 for example renders really well on even A7RII FF sensor.
 
woof woof said:
If you have access to old and new lenses shoot with them and assess the results and if you can only see that newer lenses are better at the edges at f1.4 you've got some very good old lenses and some crap newer ones :D Or maybe you're just sensible, many of us are not and look too closely.
Click to expand...

It's all taste, and very subjective at the end of the day. You can find examples for and against on either side of the fence.

woof woof said:
I don't think you'll find many Sony fan boys on this site and I'm certainly not one, I'm brand agnostic. Fact is that if you want ff and a csc in one camera Sony is the only player at the mo and for anyone wanting to use old lenses on a digital body they're worth a look as the old lenses will behave better on the ff sensor simply because you need less magnification. My old lenses work much better on my ff A7 than on mft.
Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't go looking for Sony fan boys on this forum of another ;)

As I mentioned above (and in the video): at the moment they aren't for me/ I can't gel with them, even though other people have had great results from them and love them. It is just another matter of taste, and I might love some of the stuff yet to come :)
 
Musicman said:
AFAIK FD 55/1.2s never had thoriated elements (though the 1971 FL 58/1.2 did).

My 1977 55/1.2 Asph certainly isn't. The glass is clear, unlike my breechlock FD 35/2, which is distinctly yellow. I treat it as a built in yellow filter for b/w film.

They're all pretty safe as long as you don't grind up the glass and eat it.

Anyhoo - I feel a mini TP meet coming on... :)
Click to expand...

This is handy information!

So which other Zuiko's doth thou have?
 
Last edited:
Slyelessar said:
This is handy information!

So which other Zuiko's doth thou have?
Click to expand...

Nothing too fancy: a 50/1.8, 135/3.5, 28/3.5 and a 24/2.8, plus a 35-70 f/4.

I got them originally to use with a 5D when I was getting increasingly to dislike autofocus and wanted to test the water with MF on digital. The OM2 followed when I found a nice one going cheap.

Then the A7 came along and I could use all the FDs I was still using with film bodies and the Zuikos have taken a bit of a back seat.

Rather gutted I accidentally dropped the 35-70 on my way home this evening and put a dent in the filter ring, though. I haven't had a chance to check if it's done any other damage [emoji853]
 
Musicman said:
Nothing too fancy: a 50/1.8, 135/3.5, 28/3.5 and a 24/2.8, plus a 35-70 f/4.

I got them originally to use with a 5D when I was getting increasingly to dislike autofocus and wanted to test the water with MF on digital. The OM2 followed when I found a nice one going cheap.

Then the A7 came along and I could use all the FDs I was still using with film bodies and the Zuikos have taken a bit of a back seat.

Rather gutted I accidentally dropped the 35-70 on my way home this evening and put a dent in the filter ring, though. I haven't had a chance to check if it's done any other damage [emoji853]
Click to expand...

Nice collection :)

Sorry to hear about the 35-70! I may have one laying around I don't use.

Here's some of mine:

24mm F2.8
28mm F2
35mm F2.8
50mm F1.4
50mm F1.8
135mm F3.5
75-150 F4(I think)
35-70 - I need to double check I have

I feel like I am missing some out :/

85mm F2, 50mm F2 macro, and 50mm F1.2 are top of my wish list.
 
I really want to like the Zuiko 24mm f/2.8, but it suffers from significant moustache distortion, which is a right pain as a I take a lot of photos of buildings. That said, I have two large-ish prints on my living room wall that were taken with it on my 5D - this being one of the pictures.


Downings Road Moorings by Rob Telford, on Flickr

The OM 135mm f/3.5 is a little gem, though. I love the way it draws an image and it seems to have very few vices.


Hop Exchange by Rob Telford, on Flickr
 
People definitely have a nice larger collection than me...
I got a OM 21mm f3.5, OM 16mm f3.5 fisheye, FDn 50mm f1.2, Yashica 50mm f2, couple of helios 44-2 (58mm f2) in m42. Also tamron adaptall 90mm (52B) which you may have noticed in classifieds :LOL:
 
nandbytes said:
People definitely have a nice larger collection than me...
I got a OM 21mm f3.5, OM 16mm f3.5 fisheye, FDn 50mm f1.2, Yashica 50mm f2, couple of helios 44-2 (58mm f2) in m42. Also tamron adaptall 90mm (52B) which you may have noticed in classifieds :LOL:
Click to expand...

The Yashica lenses are a big find. I have the Yashica 50mm ML F1.4 and it is one of the nicest lenses I have ever used! The bokeh is lovely at F1.4! I have a review video of it coming out (hopefully tonight), and this little gem is still can be found rather cheap online.

Nice collection of zuikos you have there :)
 
Musicman said:
I really want to like the Zuiko 24mm f/2.8, but it suffers from significant moustache distortion, which is a right pain as a I take a lot of photos of buildings. That said, I have two large-ish prints on my living room wall that were taken with it on my 5D - this being one of the pictures.


Downings Road Moorings by Rob Telford, on Flickr

The OM 135mm f/3.5 is a little gem, though. I love the way it draws an image and it seems to have very few vices.

Hop Exchange by Rob Telford, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Very nice shots, I particular like the first one!

The 24mm F2.8 is a lovely lens, and is fantastic for street photography. Here is a shot I took on Tri-X that was pushed 2 stops in development:

33437533263_e17f82a331_h.jpg
33863914650_00700beeb5_h.jpg
 
Another one here 15-minutes from Carshalton (ish...), also with an A7R2 and a couple of vintage lenses, though no Zuiko's...
Current crop is a Helio 44-2, Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5, FD 28mm f/2.8, FD 135 f/2.8 and a Sigma 24mm f/2.8 on it's way today :)
 
One of the things I like about old lenses is they can have dual personalities... when stopped down to what could be described as their normal working apertures, something like f5.6-10, and used properly :D they can be sharp and correct and give a look that's very technical and correct and no one would ever know you'd used an old lens but when used at other apertures or provoked to be so they can be dreamy... ethereal and otherworldly or weird :D

DSC02441-C.jpg
DSC05380.JPG DSC06102.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top