Hey guys? Anybody using the olympus manual focus prime lens with the Af100? How are they? Especially when you compare to the Nikon manual focus primes. The nikons are fantastic. Just wanted to get an opinion about the olympus ones. If you can please also state the characteristics of the lens as well as in like are the cool or warm and like are the contrastry etc. Thanking in advance...
Olympus Primes
- Thread starter sharry
- Start date
Greg Smith
Veteran
Do you mean current 4/3 series lenses, or the older OM-mount Zuikos? I have a few of the latter and whether I could use them successfully could be yet another factor in my decision about buying an AF100. So I'm interested in opinions.
- Greg
- Greg
Yes.
Got a bunch of Zuikos in a package deal (28/2.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.8, 135/2.8, 200/4), later on, sampled some FD and Nikkor glass, and hadn't seen enough of a difference to buy either of the latter.
They're smooth, don't have too far of a focus throw, can be a little difficult to de-click, but look good. Used prices on them are typically stupid cheap. The 50/1.4 gets a little funky with all sorts of purple fringing wide-open... which can be a neat look in its own right. I wouldn't call any of them "tack-sharp," but perhaps that's just my copies.
Also owning a Panny 20/1.7 and Elmarit-R 28/2.8, my OM 28 is pretty well redundant and unimpressive in comparison... but the others are good to have around until something better comes along.
I'll see if I can throw together some example footage....
Got a bunch of Zuikos in a package deal (28/2.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.8, 135/2.8, 200/4), later on, sampled some FD and Nikkor glass, and hadn't seen enough of a difference to buy either of the latter.
They're smooth, don't have too far of a focus throw, can be a little difficult to de-click, but look good. Used prices on them are typically stupid cheap. The 50/1.4 gets a little funky with all sorts of purple fringing wide-open... which can be a neat look in its own right. I wouldn't call any of them "tack-sharp," but perhaps that's just my copies.
Also owning a Panny 20/1.7 and Elmarit-R 28/2.8, my OM 28 is pretty well redundant and unimpressive in comparison... but the others are good to have around until something better comes along.
I'll see if I can throw together some example footage....
Oliver Rush
Well-known member
What nikon primes are you comparing them too... build quality wise the older nikons (AI are usually my favorite) are unmatched in their price range (the good older canon FDs are up there too... I had a 50mm 1.8 FD that was beautiful mechanically, never used it on the AF100 though, only on a canon film camera, but I digress...), and the longer focus throw is nice for pulling focus, not to mention they feel nice and metal and smooth. I just appreciate build quality, especially that which affects the operations, a lot in a lens. Alot of newer lenses have little focus rings with shallow throws (including many cheap nikons), which is fine for photography, but not to great for video. It is really the mechanics of the old lenses combined with their IQ that makes them great. I have never used the olympus lenses personally, but would assume the IQ is prefectly fine. The beauty of the older Nikons though is that they are great to use, and they can be mounted on basically any camera.
HI, I have a full set of OM Zuiko lenses. They look great. No one wants them so price wise they are quite reasonable. Olympus started out as a microscope company, so they had to deal with making decent glass. The differences between Nikon and Olympus glass is splitting hair on the AF100. I use my Olympus lenses on both the AF100 and the 5D. They look great on the 5D. With all these lenses from the 70's and 80's, both Nikon and Olympus, they are a different look than say modern Canon glass. They are not quite as sharp. Not as sharp as a Zeiss either. But you notice the difference from say a micro 4/3's lens immediately.
I highly recommend them all, now that I've acquired. I even have a 65-200 zoom, which I got for 49 bucks. No image stabilization so it's sticks only, but does anyone really think the AF100 is a good ENG handheld rig? I'm realizing that I'm about to use my 5D for all b-roll situations, and use the AF100 as an interview only sticks only camera.
In addition, Olympus makes a 21, 24, 28,35, 85, 100 all at f2. and a very sweet 180mm f2.8. And a great 300mm 4.5, although you need rods and support for the 300.
Do I have a few Nikons? Yes, the micro 55 and 105- but Olympus are lighter, easier to focus, typically are easier to rack f-stop with, and overall seem to have a better sense of design.
f
I highly recommend them all, now that I've acquired. I even have a 65-200 zoom, which I got for 49 bucks. No image stabilization so it's sticks only, but does anyone really think the AF100 is a good ENG handheld rig? I'm realizing that I'm about to use my 5D for all b-roll situations, and use the AF100 as an interview only sticks only camera.
In addition, Olympus makes a 21, 24, 28,35, 85, 100 all at f2. and a very sweet 180mm f2.8. And a great 300mm 4.5, although you need rods and support for the 300.
Do I have a few Nikons? Yes, the micro 55 and 105- but Olympus are lighter, easier to focus, typically are easier to rack f-stop with, and overall seem to have a better sense of design.
f