Olympus 85-250mm f/5 OM

Generally speaking, OM zooms aren't all that great, particularly compared to their primes. However, it's free so the price is right and you can keep the adapter for when you buy the primes ;)
 
I find the OM lenses are not a sharp as my 4/3rds lenses, but that might be my middle-aged eyes not being as good at manual focusing as they once were. :o

Still, even poorer quality lenses can bring about some nice effects that are unachievable with high quality glass. And, vignetting and barreling/pin-cushioning are easily fixable in Lightroom/ACR. Enjoy it!
 
Ivor said:
I find the OM lenses are not a sharp as my 4/3rds lenses, but that might be my middle-aged eyes not being as good at manual focusing as they once were. :eek:

Still, even poorer quality lenses can bring about some nice effects that are unachievable with high quality glass. And, vignetting and barreling/pin-cushioning are easily fixable in Lightroom/ACR. Enjoy it!
Click to expand...

H'mm I've read OM lenses are highly regarded....I only have the 50mm prime and that is very good but do not have any digital lenses to compare it with ;)
 
excalibur2 said:
H'mm I've read OM lenses are highly regarded....I only have the 50mm prime and that is very good but do not have any digital lenses to compare it with ;)
Click to expand...

I used to use OM system cameras, and they were fantastic. If I went back to film I would still use them. Technology has changed though and digital sensors are far more sensitive than film was and the optics have to be better for that extra sensitivity. I too have an OM 50mm f/1.8 but I can't get as good results from it as I can my digital lenses... but as I said, some of that may be down to my less than accurate eyes. :(
 
Ivor said:
Technology has changed though and digital sensors are far more sensitive than film was and the optics have to be better for that extra sensitivity. . :(
Click to expand...

really ???
 
Those little sensors are probably more sensitive to lens quality and their high resolution combined with pixel peeping really will make the OM show their age. I expect if you put a MF lens on a OM body you'd find even a 'blad looked a little less sharp than it did on 120. The larger the format the less sharp a lens needs to be to make a pin sharp image, the smaller the format the higher tolerances the lens must be made to.

Now if all the 4/3rd people recognised this the OM lenses would come back down to more realistic prices...
 
Ivor said:
I used to use OM system cameras, and they were fantastic. If I went back to film I would still use them. Technology has changed though and digital sensors are far more sensitive than film was and the optics have to be better for that extra sensitivity. I too have an OM 50mm f/1.8 but I can't get as good results from it as I can my digital lenses... but as I said, some of that may be down to my less than accurate eyes. :(
Click to expand...

Well maybe film lenses are made for film cameras and digital lenses for digital cameras ;)
 
My understanding is that digital sensors are much more critical to the direction at which light hits them than film. Good digital lenses are near telecentric so the light is travelling perpendicular to the sensor. Old film lenses were not necessarily designed that way because light could hit and expose the film from any direction. So, a film lens on a DSLR will produce more vignetting than it would on a SLR because the light is not travelling at 90 degrees to the sensor at the edges.

I also read somewhere (but beggered if I can find where, I thought it was dpreview but I might be wrong) than digital sensors are more sensitive than film (though I love the look of film). That coupled with the higher pixel count on newer cameras mean that DSLRs require much better optics than film cameras. Lens manufacturing technology has improved hugely. Therefore film lenses do not perform as well as digital lenses on DSLRs. This seems to be born out by my experience, but I am glad to be corrected if I have got it all wrong.

As for smaller sensors being s***e, nah, they are just different. :D
 
Its free, go for it!

Also it had a good reputation in its day and was better than the 50-250 that replaced it. Real blast from the past this, I used to shoot with one back in the day!

Can't comment how it will perform on digital though. I concur with Ivor about lenses designed for digital being telecentric. The pixels out at the edge of the sensor need the light to hit them head on, where as with film the chemical reaction to the light falling on the emulsion at the edge of the frame is far less dependent in its angle of arrival!

Therefore, get an OM-1 or 2, they have a great bright viewfinder that will handle the F5 maximum aperture and shoot some film.:)
 
I wouldn't care about "its free", it sounds like a freaky focal length range ... and a quick check shows a really snazzy tripod collar.
Nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top