Prime lens advice: OM or 4/3s??

MerseysideRed · 4th April 2007

Hi guys, I have the E500 with zoom lenses. Now I am looking to acquire prime lenses because of the obvious benefits they bring. OM lenses (eg 50mm 1.8f) are cheaper ($100+) but with no AF, 4/3 primes are sharp but expensive($700+). Not looking for 35mm 3.5f because I want a bigger aperture. I must admit, $$ is a big concern now and am abit tight. So are OM primes good enough or shall I attempt to save up for the 4/3s??

drakon09 · 4th April 2007

Zuiko Digital zooms, especially the high-grade line upwards, have great corner to corner sharpness with minimal chromatic abberation and almost no vignetting, in essence functioning like a prime lens.

Zuiko Digital primes in the normal and short-telephoto focal lengths are all macro lenses; the planned 100mm prime in 2008 is also a macro.

So do consider the zooms.

cjtune · 4th April 2007

I have a late edition Zuiko OM f/1.8 multi-coated 50mm prime.
It's rather soft wide open but about as sharp as my Zuiko Digital 14-54mm lens at f/2.8 -I haven't inspected its corner sharpness yet. Being soft wide open is characteristic of all the 50mm old Zuiko OM prime lenses, I reckon. But the Zuiko Digital macros are sharp right from the largest aperture opening.

Main difficulty in using is, as you've noted, manual focus only and compounded by the very thin DOF. Their minimum focus distance is still quite long, say about 0.5m, so they don't make good macro lenses.

I bought it for low-light shots, and I guess with the sum of money I paid for it (about S$67 from Ebay), it does its job OK. At f/1.8 it gives me hand-holdable speeds when my ZD14-54 can't do the job and since I'll be using it usually at ISO800, softness at f/1.8 isn't such a big issue.

OlyFlyer · 4th April 2007

Definitely worth saving for Oly ED 50mm f2.0 prime. It is not comparable with OM 50mm f1.8 at all. There is just one very big disadvantage of the ED 50mm, that is it is almost useless on macro bellows due to its own length. It is far too long to call it useful for that purpose. Actually, even the OM 50mm is useless due to it's uneven quality. I find OM 100mm and OM 35mm the best ones of the non-macro primes that fit for that purpose. But unless you are into macro bellows thinking, go for the ED 50mm f2.0. It is a great lens for most "normal" situations.

Beware! If you get one that is not recognized properly by Olympus Master or Studio as a 50mm lens, don't worry, just send it in for repair. They know what to do with it. The benefit was in my case a faster AF and no hunting at all, and future possibilities to upgrade the firmware if Oly releases new for this lens.

jjtml · 4th April 2007

Olyflyer,

What are your views, how does the 50mm f1.4 stack up?

I think it's a great lens for the price and matches the digital 50mm

OlyFlyer · 4th April 2007

Originally Posted by drakon09

Zuiko Digital zooms, especially the high-grade line upwards, have great corner to corner sharpness with minimal chromatic abberation and almost no vignetting, in essence functioning like a prime lens.

Zuiko Digital primes in the normal and short-telephoto focal lengths are all macro lenses; the planned 100mm prime in 2008 is also a macro.

So do consider the zooms.

Sorry, I disagree. Digital zooms may be way better than old ones but definitely very far from present digital primes. No way they can ever win against a prime. As far as vignetting is concerned even the 14-54mm pro grade has it. I have so far not seen any vignetting on my ED 50mm prime, not even wide open.

The fact that all Zuiko digital primes are macro is not really a disadvantage, even if you are not interested in macro, there are situations when the ability to focus at close range is a big plus. Since I had my ED 50mm repaired the AF is very fast so I think that the roumors that calls all macro slow to AF is just roumors. No hunting or slow AF if the lens is healthy and recognized by Oly software. At least not for me with my E-500.

Zooms have been a compromise and they will always be. Even if today's zooms are much much better than the ones from 1980's but they are never comparable with today's primes. However, I would rather get a good quality digital zoom than cheap primes, except that even cheap primes are much faster, since they usually have much larger aperture. So, on a low budget, OM primes are a very good alternative if you need fast lenses and are willing to handle the lens manually. I have 35mm, 100mm and 400mm OM primes and these are really very good for the purpose, especially since adding their prices will not even finance a ZD 35mm lens, actually not even a 14-45mm zoom.

OlyFlyer · 5th April 2007

Originally Posted by jjtml

Olyflyer,

What are your views, how does the 50mm f1.4 stack up?

I think it's a great lens for the price and matches the digital 50mm

Sorry, I have no idea. Never had a 50mm f1.4 but I think it depends on what you compare with. I think the ED 50 f2.0 is a vinner whatever you compare with. As I said before, manual lenses may be a very good budget alternatives but can not beat the more modern digital ones. I think even Sigma is way better than any OM lenses. Since you could anyway not use the f1.4 setting, it is not even faster than the ED50 f2.0. The ED lenses can be used wide open, the OM can not.

Mikefellh · 5th April 2007

There's lots of OM advice here (click on the links at the bottom of the following link to reviews of OM lenses):
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/omz.html

Also click on the "Other Articles" link while you're there to learn about E-system in general.

MerseysideRed · 10th May 2007

After trawling through websites and reviews, I've decided that the ZD lenses saves alot of hassle and are mighty good optically. Have a look at my WTB tread if you have one to let go -

http://forum.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=279322 .

Manual focusing for a while makes my eyes feel strained although it's enjoyable sometimes. But can't imagine myself going around MF-ing the whole day with the viewfinder size.

4th April 2007	#1
MerseysideRed Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 53	Prime lens advice: OM or 4/3s?? Hi guys, I have the E500 with zoom lenses. Now I am looking to acquire prime lenses because of the obvious benefits they bring. OM lenses (eg 50mm 1.8f) are cheaper ($100+) but with no AF, 4/3 primes are sharp but expensive($700+). Not looking for 35mm 3.5f because I want a bigger aperture. I must admit, $$ is a big concern now and am abit tight. So are OM primes good enough or shall I attempt to save up for the 4/3s??

4th April 2007	#2
drakon09 Moderator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,690	Re: Prime lens advice: OM or 4/3s?? Zuiko Digital zooms, especially the high-grade line upwards, have great corner to corner sharpness with minimal chromatic abberation and almost no vignetting, in essence functioning like a prime lens. Zuiko Digital primes in the normal and short-telephoto focal lengths are all macro lenses; the planned 100mm prime in 2008 is also a macro. So do consider the zooms.

4th April 2007	#3
cjtune Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,516	Re: Prime lens advice: OM or 4/3s?? I have a late edition Zuiko OM f/1.8 multi-coated 50mm prime. It's rather soft wide open but about as sharp as my Zuiko Digital 14-54mm lens at f/2.8 -I haven't inspected its corner sharpness yet. Being soft wide open is characteristic of all the 50mm old Zuiko OM prime lenses, I reckon. But the Zuiko Digital macros are sharp right from the largest aperture opening. Main difficulty in using is, as you've noted, manual focus only and compounded by the very thin DOF. Their minimum focus distance is still quite long, say about 0.5m, so they don't make good macro lenses. I bought it for low-light shots, and I guess with the sum of money I paid for it (about S$67 from Ebay), it does its job OK. At f/1.8 it gives me hand-holdable speeds when my ZD14-54 can't do the job and since I'll be using it usually at ISO800, softness at f/1.8 isn't such a big issue.

4th April 2007	#4
OlyFlyer Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Europe, Sweden, outside Lund Posts: 2,038	Re: Prime lens advice: OM or 4/3s?? Definitely worth saving for Oly ED 50mm f2.0 prime. It is not comparable with OM 50mm f1.8 at all. There is just one very big disadvantage of the ED 50mm, that is it is almost useless on macro bellows due to its own length. It is far too long to call it useful for that purpose. Actually, even the OM 50mm is useless due to it's uneven quality. I find OM 100mm and OM 35mm the best ones of the non-macro primes that fit for that purpose. But unless you are into macro bellows thinking, go for the ED 50mm f2.0. It is a great lens for most "normal" situations. Beware! If you get one that is not recognized properly by Olympus Master or Studio as a 50mm lens, don't worry, just send it in for repair. They know what to do with it. The benefit was in my case a faster AF and no hunting at all, and future possibilities to upgrade the firmware if Oly releases new for this lens.

4th April 2007	#5
jjtml Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 311	Re: Prime lens advice: OM or 4/3s?? Olyflyer, What are your views, how does the 50mm f1.4 stack up? I think it's a great lens for the price and matches the digital 50mm

5th April 2007	#8
Mikefellh Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,460	Re: Prime lens advice: OM or 4/3s?? There's lots of OM advice here (click on the links at the bottom of the following link to reviews of OM lenses): http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/omz.html Also click on the "Other Articles" link while you're there to learn about E-system in general.

10th May 2007	#9
MerseysideRed Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 53	Re: Prime lens advice: OM or 4/3s?? After trawling through websites and reviews, I've decided that the ZD lenses saves alot of hassle and are mighty good optically. Have a look at my WTB tread if you have one to let go - http://forum.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=279322 . Manual focusing for a while makes my eyes feel strained although it's enjoyable sometimes. But can't imagine myself going around MF-ing the whole day with the viewfinder size.