Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] OM-D Manual focus

Subject: Re: [OM] OM-D Manual focus
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 22:11:15 -0800
On 1/16/2018 4:20 AM, Mike Bloor wrote:
Can anyone point me to a guide on using my OM-D E-M5 II with MF lenses? I'm not finding the instruction manual at all helpful.

Why would they make it easier for you to use old lenses, rather than buy some 
new ones from them? ;-)

First, you need to set the camera to shoot without a lens attached, an AF lens, that is. Menu *C, "RlsPriority S" set to "On"

Then, there are two aids:

1. Magnify. For AF lenses, you can set this to happen whenever you touch the focus ring. For MF lenses, it has to be turned on and off with an Fn button. SCP lower right or Menu *B gets you to where you set Fn Button functions.

2. Peaking. This gives a shimmery look to edges that are in focus. Menu *D, "Peaking Settings"  turns it on and off and adjusts what it looks like. You can also set an Fn button to turn it on and off. I just leave it on. It's a compromise. With low light and/or low contrast, you may get hardly any indication. With busy subjects and a wide aperture, it isn't particularly precise. I rock focus back and forth to find the middle of the range that fires up the shimmers on my focus target.

I'll probably start off trying an OM 50mm 1.4, but given Moose's recent experiments

I didn't say it was poor, only not quite as good as the M.Z 25/1.8. And remember, I was comparing lenses for and on different formats with the same AoV. That doesn't really tell very much about one of them on the other format.

and the fact that I have the following in my office, would any make a better 
choice?

Olympus 50 1.4 (two versions including serial no. 1.1 million plus)
Olympus 50 1.8 (including first and last versions)
Pentax Super Takumar 50 1.4 and 55 1.8 (from Spotmatics)
Nikon 50 1.4 and 50 2.0 (from Nikon F and Nikkormat FTn)
Miranda 50 1.8 (from Sensorex II)
Canon FL 55 1.2 (from Pellix QL)
Minolta MC Rokkor 58 1.4 (from SRT-101)
Minolta Auto Rokkor 58 1.4 (from SR7v)
Rollei Planar 50 1.8 (from Rollieflex SL35)
Olympus 40 1.4 (from Pen FT)

What are you looking for? I assume by "better choice", you mean higher resolution, better corners, etc? For that, it's mostly the later the better. I doubt if any of the above will match, let alone exceed, the resolution and contrast of any native µ4/3 AF lens of similar FL. Most of the above are modified Gauss designs with 6 or 7 elements. Even the lesser µ4/3 42.5-45 mm lenses have 9 elements, one or two of which are unlike anything available back when. The high end ones have 14 elements, many aspheric or with special refractive index and/or dispersion characteristics. I would expect either of them to wipe the floor with any of the above for resolution and minimal aberrations.

The M.Z 45/1.8 is excellent, the Panny 42.5/1.7 excellent+. The f1.2 lenses may 
be stratospheric.

The OMZ1.1M+ is a good choice. The SMC and Super Multi Coated Takumars (yes, there is supposed to be a difference) are supposed to be excellent, with the earlier ones actually better. My Nikkor 50/2 was noticeably sharper than my early OMZ 50/1.8, but later 50/1.8s improved a lot.

The Canon 55/1.2 is pretty soft wide open, but gets better fast. I just bought its predecessor, the '62 design 58/1.2 expressly for it's "character" at wide apertures.

Honestly, there may be more differences from sample variation, both in manufacturing and what has happened to individual lenses in the subsequent decades than between the many f1.4 and 1.8 makes and models. They're all capable of excellent photos, and assiduous testing and pixel peeping will show differences, to what purpose, one may only guess.

If it's "character", "rendering", 'drawing" you are looking for, ya just gotta try 'em. If it's for fun, pick the one that looks and feels good. If it's for optical quality, sell 'em all and buy a Panny or Oly µ4/3. If it's for super shallow DoF, the Canon will sure do that, but is a bit soft that open. Perhaps it wouldn't matter, as nailing MF focus that shallow is tough, anyway. :-)

Then too, to try them all would mean seven different mount adapters! I'd get an OM=>µ4/3 and one of Pentax, Canon or Minolta. Thus speaks the guy with the gear to handle eight different mounts on my A7 and five on µ4/3, unless I've missed one. Hahahahaha.

Sparkly Edges Moose

--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz