New AF primes better than Oly 35SP & OM Zuikos?

Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by John Orrell, Oct 26, 2005.

  1. John Orrell

    John Orrell TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Land of 365-day Winters:North West England :(
    I currently have an Olympus 35SP rangefinder and an OM4Ti SLR. I use the OM4Ti mainly with its 50mm F/1.8 prime.

    In terms of sharpness, contrast and definition, how do you reckon the quality of the images my current kit can produce (say on slide film) would compare with a modern film SLR & prime lens? I know there are lots of different factors, but was just wondering how the SP & OM lenses compared with say a modern 40mm/50mm prime from such as Nikon or Canon? The reason I ask is I now find have problems focussing the MF cameras because of my own less-than-brilliant eyesight, and would consider looking round for a decent AF SLR with a prime lens.

    The trouble is I've not looked at modern cameras for so long now and I'm not sure where to start to get something as sharp & contrasty. I don't know if advances in technology over the years means that all new lenses are basically so good these days that virtually anything would easily match the quality I currently get, or worryingly if the opposite is true?
     
  2. John Orrell

    John Orrell TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Land of 365-day Winters:North West England :(
    No one :( ?
     
  3. DocFrankenstein

    DocFrankenstein Clinically Insane?

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,646
    Likes Received:
    6
    I've only heard positive things about Zuiko but never seen them.

    There was a review of 50/1.4 lenses from different manufacturers. Contax came up first, then Canon...

    I THINK then was pentax and then Nikon taking fourth place... but I do remember that Nikon was kinda low.

    Photodo.com reflects that, giving:
    contax 4.5
    canon 4.4
    nikon 4.2
    pentax 4.2

    I would probably get an EOS3 in your case, with a 50/1.4 I beleive that thing can focus faster than contax...

    Also, for optimal sharpness, stop down to 5.6 and use tripod and MLU... but then AF doesn't matter much... Which brings us to the fact that canon has no marks of hyperfocal distance on the lens.

    And contax has them "wrong". LOL Or calculated on the film from 60 years ago.

    Good luck deciding.
     
  4. DocFrankenstein

    DocFrankenstein Clinically Insane?

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,646
    Likes Received:
    6
    BTW: Why not just set to the hyperfocal distance for the landscapes on your olympus gear?
     
  5. John Orrell

    John Orrell TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Land of 365-day Winters:North West England :(
    Thanks...I could do that for landscapes, but I'm still kinda stuck for closer work that demands faster, more accurate focussing than I'm finding I can do.

    However, I may just have my dilema sorted: someone on another forum has offered me a Contax G1 AF rangefinder, 35mm F2 Carl Zeiss Planar + lens hood for US$535 including shipping to the UK, which seems a fair deal. He's pushing me a bit, in so far as he wants payment off me asap because there are other interested parties, so I guess I'll just have to "put it on plastic" then eBay my current kit afterwards.
     
  6. DocFrankenstein

    DocFrankenstein Clinically Insane?

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,646
    Likes Received:
    6
    If that's what you're looking for, go for it.

    I know that 50/1.4 review is for SLRs... but I'd imagine the rangefinder lens would be even better.

    Good luck
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

oly 35sp