Olympus OM on M9

[sinjun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently bought a Fotodiox adaptor to use my old Olympus Zuiko 24mm f/2.8 on my M9. This used to be a favourite lens of mine on an OM2 and I thought could be the solution to colour casts with wideangle, since the back of the lens is far from the sensor. However, I am disappointed to find that images suffer from extreme blurring away from the centre.

 

Does anyone know why this should be the case?

[01af]

Once I tried the OM Zuiko Auto-W 24 mm 1:2 on the M (Typ 240), and the results were just fine. Of course, the Zuiko's performance is nowhere near the Leica M wide-angle lenses ... but neither is it "extremely blurry."

[Guest]

Had the Zuiko 18mm and 24mm on my M8 years ago with a Novoflex adaptor and confirm the statement of 01af.

[250swb]

Olympus OM lenses are amongst the best made for an SLR, but the problem comes from the design of the micro prisms of the digital sensor which is optimised for RF lenses(a similar discussion is going on about the use of wide angle RF lenses on the Sony A7R body). Lenses are designed to cover a certain angle of view with an SLR, but the Leica sensor doesn't respond to the same incident angles of light compared with an SLR lens, it's designed for a rangefinder lens. So you get smearing at the edges. There is nothing wrong with the lens or the body, but a compromise is needed to make both work together.

 

Steve

[jdlaing]

How did you focus it on the M-9?

[250swb]

You guess how far away the thing you want to focus on is. A 24mm lens has a lot of DOF so you can also zone focus using the DOF scale.

 

Steve

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Once I tried the OM Zuiko Auto-W 24 mm 1:2 on the M (Typ 240), and the results were just fine. Of course, the Zuiko's performance is nowhere near the Leica M wide-angle lenses ... but neither is it "extremely blurry."

 

Practically same results with the Zuikos 18mm and 24mm on a 5D with a OM->EOS adaptor imo.

All SLR "super-wide-angles" from that era were inferior to the 21mm Super Angulon or the SWC and later the M-2.8/24mm.

[01af]

... the problem comes from the design of the micro prisms of the digital sensor which is optimised for rangefinder lenses [...] So you get smearing at the edges. There is nothing wrong with the lens or the body, but a compromise is needed to make both work together.

You are confusing a couple of things here. Problems may arise from using rangefinder lenses on non-rangefinder cameras ... not the other way around.

 

As a matter of fact, the Olympus OM Zuiko Auto-W 24 mm 1:2 and 24 mm 1:2.8 lenses simply are not "among the best." They were decent in their time—the 1970s— but not extraordinarily good. They are poor by today's standards ... especially by today's Leica standards. Wide open, the corners are blurry—that's just how the lenses are; it has nothing to do with the camera being a digital rangefinder. At f/5.6, the corners are much better but still not on the same level as the edges or the center. Good corner sharpness requires stopping down to f/8 or f/11. That's just typical for most wide-angle lenses from the 1980s and older. On the other hand, I think for a very compact 40-year-old 24 mm 1:2 lens, the Zuiko's center sharpness at f/2 is surprisingly good.

[Stealth3kpl]

There's a chap on RFF who's modified a Pentax 50 f1.4 to enable accurate focusing of the rangefinder. The results are impressive.

Pete

[sinjun]

You are confusing a couple of things here. Problems may arise from using rangefinder lenses on non-rangefinder cameras ... not the other way around.

 

As a matter of fact, the Olympus OM Zuiko Auto-W 24 mm 1:2 and 24 mm 1:2.8 lenses simply are not "among the best." They were decent in their time—the 1970s— but not extraordinarily good. They are poor by today's standards ... especially by today's Leica standards. Wide open, the corners are blurry—that's just how the lenses are; it has nothing to do with the camera being a digital rangefinder. At f/5.6, the corners are much better but still not on the same level as the edges or the center. Good corner sharpness requires stopping down to f/8 or f/11. That's just typical for most wide-angle lenses from the 1980s and older. On the other hand, I think for a very compact 40-year-old 24 mm 1:2 lens, the Zuiko's center sharpness at f/2 is surprisingly good.

 

There's something else going on with mine - even at f/8 there's a blurry, or smeared look much from the centre, which is a shame. I didn't expect Leica quality, but the Zuiko 24mm f/2.8 is a decent lens still. I also wanted to use it for close-ups, since if focuses to less than 25 cm.

[01af]

There's something else going on with mine—even at f/8 there's a blurry or smeared look much from the centre, which is a shame. I didn't expect Leica quality, but the Zuiko 24 mm f/2.8 is a decent lens still.

It's not an excellent lens... but a decent and perfectly usable lens it sure is. If you used to be happy with the results on your Olympus OM-2 then you should be just as happy with it on a Leica digital rangefinder. Maybe your lens has taken some kind of damage recently? Or maybe the Fotodiox adapter is poor quality? How do the pictures look when you load a roll of film in your OM-2 today?

 

 

I also wanted to use it for close-ups, since if focuses to less than 25 cm.

An adapted SLR lens on the Leica M9 is not a very good solution for close-ups, as you cannot focus properly. At medium and long shooting distances, depth-of-field of a 24 mm wide-angle is deep enough to get away with scale or zone focusing. However at distances less than, say, 1 m you'd need to focus precisely which is not supported by the M9. You'd need either an SLR camera or a camera with live-view, such as the Leica M (Typ 240).

[250swb]

There's something else going on with mine - even at f/8 there's a blurry, or smeared look much from the centre, which is a shame. I didn't expect Leica quality, but the Zuiko 24mm f/2.8 is a decent lens still. I also wanted to use it for close-ups, since if focuses to less than 25 cm.

 

Obviously 01af knows more than you, he says he does so it must be so. You can't possibly have been happy with it on your OM2 and can't possibly be seeing unexpected effects with it on your M9. Even the so called experts are wrong, speaking of the Zuiko 24mm f/2.8 one even went as far as to say

 

"It produces sharp, high contrast images with minimal flare even shooting in unfavourable lighting (such as backlit scenes) which makes this extremely compact Zuiko optical gem a favorite lense for ultra-wideangle photography. It terms of size and weight - this Zuiko wideangle is one of the lightest and most compact in its class."

 

which doesn't make sense from what we've just learned. You should do as I do, treat 01af's wisdom with all the deference that you can summon (not that you'll need to bust a gut).

 

Steve

[sinjun]

It's not an excellent lens... but a decent and perfectly usable lens it sure is. If you used to be happy with the results on your Olympus OM-2 then you should be just as happy with it on a Leica digital rangefinder. Maybe your lens has taken some kind of damage recently? Or maybe the Fotodiox adapter is poor quality? How do the pictures look when you load a roll of film in your OM-2 today?

 

An adapted SLR lens on the Leica M9 is not a very good solution for close-ups, as you cannot focus properly. At medium and long shooting distances, depth-of-field of a 24 mm wide-angle is deep enough to get away with scale or zone focusing. However at distances less than, say, 1 m you'd need to focus precisely which is not supported by the M9. You'd need either an SLR camera or a camera with live-view, such as the Leica M (Typ 240).

 

Unfortunately I no longer have OM2 to test. I wondered about the Fotodiox adapter, though there isn't much that can go wrong assuming it raises the lens the correct distance from the sensor.

 

I have a technique for closeups on M9: By experiment find the close focus distance, pulling out the camera strap taut and making a mark (piece of tape) on the strap at the focal point. Then when you want to take a closeup, use this mark to set the distance between camera and subject. I attach one taken with with the Zuiko.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

"It produces sharp, high contrast images with minimal flare even shooting in unfavourable lighting (such as backlit scenes) which makes this extremely compact Zuiko optical gem a favorite lense for ultra-wideangle photography. It terms of size and weight - this Zuiko wideangle is one of the lightest and most compact in its class."

 

which doesn't make sense from what we've just learned. You should do as I do, treat 01af's wisdom with all the deference that you can summon (not that you'll need to bust a gut).

 

Steve

 

I always thought it was an excellent lens on the OM2 - small, sharp, nice colour. But I never made big enlargements, so it's difficult to compare impressions with those gained now in the digital age. And the OM2 was a beautiful camera - now if only they could make a full frame digital version the same size... no need for an LCD on the back.

 

Don't be too hard on 01af - I enjoy reading his posts.

[01af]

I have a technique for closeups on M9 ...

Uh, that's clever! But of course it will work only with subjects patient enough to wait until you're done with your setup ...

 

 

I attach one taken with with the Zuiko.

Wow! Looks good. Wide-angle closeups always have a special touch ...

 

But then, unlike the Zuiko 24 mm 1:2, the Zuiko 24 mm 1:2.8 does not have floating elements—which means that at close distances the performance will take a significant drop. So for good sharpness at distances below 1 m, stopping down to at least f/5.6 is highly recommended.

 

 

I always thought it was an excellent lens on the OM-2 ...

It was a really good lens by the standards of its time. But modern standards are significantly higher now.

 

 

But I never made big enlargements, so it's difficult to compare impressions with those gained now in the digital age.

That's the point exactly. When checking the sharpness of a shot, it has become common practice to enlarge a digital capture to 100 % view on a 24" screen these days. With the 18 MP files from the Leica M9, this corresponds to a print size of approx. 95 × 140 cm! Did you ever print that big from your OM-2 shots? If you do then the shortcomings of your OM lenses will show up rather obviously.

[jdlaing]

You guess how far away the thing you want to focus on is. A 24mm lens has a lot of DOF so you can also zone focus using the DOF scale.

 

Steve

 

Gee thanks Steve. I the fifty years I have been doing this I would have never guessed about zone focusing. Now give the OP a chance to answer my question unless you are his official spokesperson.

[250swb]

Gee thanks Steve. I the fifty years I have been doing this I would have never guessed about zone focusing. Now give the OP a chance to answer my question unless you are his official spokesperson.

 

Oh I see, I'm so sorry, you were demanding a personal answer. Its a shame that in those fifty years you didn't learn any manners at the same time as learning about zone focusing. I was only trying to help. Over to the OP.....

 

Steve

[LucisPictor]

Since a decent adapter does not necessarily need to have an unpleasant price tag, it is well worth buying one.

 

OM Zuiko lenses are pretty nice, at least most of them. And they are compact, esp. if we consider that they are SLR lenses.

 

I do not have any experience with using those lenses on an "M", but I have use a bunch of Zuikos on my EOS 5D and they almost always amazed me:

 

• Zuiko 2.8/24
  
• Zuiko 2.8/28
  
• Zuiko 2.8/35
  
• Zuiko 1.4/50
  
• Zuiko 1.8/50
  
• Zuiko 2.0/85
  
• Zuiko 2.8/100
  
• Zuiko 3.5/135
  
• Zuiko 35-70
  
• Zuiko 70-150
  

 

Hell, even that cheapish 70-150 wasn't too bad. And I did really not expect a lot by such an old, cheap zoom.

 

And the 1.4/50 is IMHO one of the most useful 50s, because it is good, fast and small. That's the only one I have kept.

 

The 2.8/100 is one of the nicest 100/105s I have ever used and it is so tiny that you expect it to be a 50. I regret to have sold it.

 

The others are decent lensens as well.

 

But as I said, I have used them on a "fullframe" DSLR. There might be different outcomes when used on an M.

[sinjun]

Gee thanks Steve. I the fifty years I have been doing this I would have never guessed about zone focusing. Now give the OP a chance to answer my question unless you are his official spokesperson.

 

 

Oh I see, I'm so sorry, you were demanding a personal answer. Its a shame that in those fifty years you didn't learn any manners at the same time as learning about zone focusing. I was only trying to help. Over to the OP.....

 

Steve

 

Don't get angry with each other - it's just a misunderstanding. 250swb thought jdlaing was asking a general question when he was probably really directing it at me in case that was perhaps my problem - I didn't realise, so sorry for not replying.

 

The answer is that I use the distance and depth of field scales on the lens. I assume this is what is known as 'zone focussing'. I'm sure you know that DOF is quite generous at 24 mm so it doesn't require much tweaking. I also find I'm quite good at estimating distance, and for me it adds a bit pleasure to the process.

 

I also use the method described above for close-ups.

 

By the way, here are two pictures from the Zuiko 24 mm f/2.8 and a 25 mm CV Snapshot Skopar f/4, both taken at f/5.6.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[/ATTACH]

[sinjun]

 

But as I said, I have used them on a "fullframe" DSLR. There might be different outcomes when used on an M.

 

Interested that you have used them with success on a DSLR. Can you think of any reason why they should come out differently on the M?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[250swb]

 

By the way, here are two pictures from the Zuiko 24 mm f/2.8 and a 25 mm CV Snapshot Skopar f/4, both taken at f/5.6.

 

A good comparison, and although it has already been naively dismissed earlier in this thread this is an example of smearing caused by the micro lenses of the sensor.

 

Just because we mostly hear about RF lenses doing it on other bodies that are in the news at the moment, it does not mean it can't happen with non-RF lenses on a RF body. The micro prisms on the M9 sensor are designed to point at the light coming from the rear element of a RF lens. Add an SLR lens with an adapter and with the increased distance the prisms, and especially the corner prisms, are no longer gathering light from the direction they were designed for. And as usual it is the wide angle lenses that are worst affected. It is easy to draw out on a piece of paper, but if the prisms are at an acute angle to deal with wide angle RF lenses, as the alternative SLR lens is moved further away from the sensor that angle increases and the prisms stop working properly.

 

Another way to think of it is this. The lens to sensor distance of an m43 body is small, and the prisms are designed to match the angles of light coming in at a very acute angle. But put a wide angle RF lens on the body with an adapter and everybody acknowledges the corner smearing is down to the angle of the prisms not dealing with a lens that is further away. It is a well known phenomenon. So scale this up, the m43 camera is now the M9 body, still a relatively small lens to sensor distance compared with a DSLR/SLR lens. The same thing happens with an SLR lens, the prisms are no longer at the optimum angle when a lens from a camera system with a greater lens/film/sensor distance is used. It is exactly the same effect as we see with a wide angle RF lens causing smearing on the A7R.

 

Steve