Olympus om g manual

Olympus A Olympus F full-synchro flash. Olympus Film Back. Olympus Compact Guide. Olympus FlashPhoto Group. Olympus AZ-1 Zoom. Olympus SuperZoom 80 Wide. Olympus Bounce Grip. Olympus Motor Drives. Olympus Quick Auto Olympus Stylus Epic Zoom 80 Deluxe. Olympus 35 SP. Olympus 35 Model IV. Olympus 35 S 1. Olympus IS Olympus 35 RD. Olympus Infinity Zoom Olympus Infinity Jr. Olympus 35 EC2.

Olympus 35 EC. Olympus 35 ED. Olympus 35ECR. Olympus 35 RC. Olympus 35 LC. Olympus 35 S Sears Tower. Olympus XA. Olympus Trip Olympus XA2. Olympus O Product camera. Olympus XA3. Olympus AF Super. Olympus XA4. Olympus Quickmatic-EEM cartridge. Olympus Electric Eye II. Olympus Quick Shooter E-F. Olympus AFL-T. Olympus Auto B Electroset.

Olympus Wide E. Olympus Pen EF. Olympus Wide Super. Olympus Super Zoom Olympus Pen EM. Olympus Ace E. For film, the extra speed makes them easier to focus accurately, which might for some make it worth the extra cost, size and slightly lower stopped down quality. Status: Bought by David and used in the days of Film. Bought by Phillip for review. An interesting lens that someone who likes the look of vintage fast wides might well invest in, as it handles flare better and is sharper than most fast wides of its era, whilst retaining that look to the bokeh.

This lens is reputed to be sharper than its replacement, the 28mm f2. I can confirm though that the later lens handles flare a bit better, though this one is not too bad considering it is probably not fully multicoated.

This lens is however very sharp indeed, and well priced, and a good choice for someone looking for an inexpensive but sharp 28 for their kit. Better contrast than the f3. I always found it remarkably sharp across the field. I always found this lens sharp enough and decent corner to corner stopped down. But it has a poor reputation in some circles.

If there is demand from readers and enthusiasm from us one of us may find a good copy to review fully. This might explain the disagreement. Status: Bought and used by David as vintage lens on digital, and occasionally for retro fun on an OM film body. This is the final version of this lens. So probably the only difference is coatings. The oldest version, the H. Zuiko, was single coated, and given the design probably had contrast issues as a result. Certainly the silver nosed versions, even marked MC, are the older body.

This lens is pretty inexpensive. We think that the later version must be redesigned as it is considerably larger and heavier than the original version. On the other hand if you are looking for something far from the modern look and if you were being tough you might say that the later version looks like an average modern lens, rather than a vintage one you might prefer the old one.

The only reason to get one of these is to experiment with shift lenses or if you think old Zuikos are cool. Back in the day, when digital perspective control was impossible, it was a godsend. I loved this lens. But the IQ is not good enough to compete with using a slightly wider lens and correcting perspective in your software of choice, much less a contemporary shift lens. On the other hand if you are using film it still makes good sense.

This lens gives you f1. There are only two reasons to consider it. One is that you want the classic f1. The other is that you are looking to save money and still get f1. In that case you will need to find a bargain. The CV 1. I have a lot of fun with this, though!

It is reputed to be less sharp and contrasty, and also to have been crazier bokeh. But these might all be features you want for some use cases! Sold in the film era to upgrade to never version.

The black nose and silver nose version of the G. Zuiko are merely cosmetically different as far as we can tell. Status: owned and used by David in the film era. New copy in occasional use on digital and film. This is a lovely classic standard lens, but it comes in many versions. This last version has both the latest coatings and a different optical design from serial number 1. This version is a little better at wide apertures than the early ones.

The first design of the Olympus 1. Sharpness is not great and due to primitive coatings flare resistance is horrible. At longer distances bokeh is nervous with loads of outlining, however near MFD bokeh is very smooth. The F. Zuiko 1. If you like the bokeh rendering a lot but you are looking for a sharper lens and better coatings, check out the latest version.

Status: owned and used by David in the film era, another copy currently owned by David for film and digital use. The optical design as well as the coatings were changed on the basic 50mm lens at some point. You will have to look through eBay carefully to find one. Our affiliate link will eliminate the F. A very sensible lens if you are playing with film on an OM, and an inexpensive fast manual fifty for digital, that is probably plays in a similar league optically than the cheaper modern ones.

One of the last generation of very high performance Zuikos this lens had great performance, although it was not as compact as most zuiko lenses.

Either is a very nice optic on Sony; get whichever is cheaper. The image is made with the MC version, but all versions are very similar. A definite recommendation, and usually easy to find and not too exepensive. This is a bigger lens, with 55mm filter threads, and not as sharp as the later 50mm f1. As a user lens for most purposes the 50mm f1. This is the first version of the lens, a 6 element Sonnar design. This is the later 5 element redesign.

As time goes on designs improve so you can get better or the same performance with fewer elements. There is no evidence that later redesigns were the result of cost cutting. It seems to me to have the same bokeh as the previous version, and a bit better resolution and contrast, though some disagree.

This lens is legendary; it was produced towards the end of the OM era and was part of a series designed to showcase their optical prowess. But as with a lot of these lenses, collectors have spoiled the party. Unless you find one cheap, you are probably better off with the CV Apo-Lanthar 2. This is a lovely little lens; see the next section for discussion of the multicoated version.

This earlier version is basically the same: the lens is simple enough that multicoating makes very little difference, and the earlier F. Zuiko version can be had very cheaply. Highly recommended for film users, or anyone looking for a small and inexpensive short tele for digital. The Olympus OM 2. Despite these positive characteristics, the lens is quite affordable and I think it offers great value.

After the 2. An excellent lens which balances performance and handling really well. Since it is a rare lens, prices are usually unreasonably high which makes it hard to recommend for actual usage to any but die hard Olympus fans.

Quite a fun lens to use because decently sharp and very small. This version is very hard to find, however. The E. Zuiko version which is widely and cheaply available is optically the same, we think, and different mainly, or only, in coatings. This lens is not expensive, and while not as good as say the Batis 2. If you want a manual f2. As far as we can tell there are no optical differences between versions, only coatings. No-one makes a portable and small tele lens any more, as zooms rule the roost for this focal length.

So if you want such a lens you have to adapt. Probably the Apo-Lanthar mm f4 from CV is the best of the compact options, but it is priced absurdly. This lens is very affordable, and might make a good stopgap for your kit. Of course you might prefer the even more compact f5 version, though finding a multicoated copy of that is very difficult indeed. This lens was designed for compactness, and it certainly succeeds.

However the last version is very hard to find. Ones for sale are almost always the G. Zuiko version. Amazing design considering its age: ED element, great minimum focus distance, surprisingly compact and lightweight. Unfortunately this is a really rare lens which has only been produced in very small quantities.

For the price of a really good used one it is probably smarter to get a modern lens like the Canon EF mm 2. Review ebay. Hands on ebay. The design is very similar to the two aforementioned lenses, but none of us has used it personally yet. It is the cheapest and easiest to get of these three Olympus Super-Tele lenses, but it competes with some of the older Canon 2. Olympus made a range of big black older long focus style telephoto lenses.

David has used the mm f4. The longer lenses — 6. They were near impossible to focus on film, but a bit easier on mirrorless. I could almost see someone using the for wildlife if they could find it cheap enough and were comfortable with manual focus. Good luck in your search for Zuiko OM lenses! Whether you are looking for a high quality and compact film system, cheap compact neutral lenses for digital, or funky older fast lenses for the vintage look, there are OMs for you all!

Articles like this require many hours of work. If you found it helpful, you can support us by:. But other slower, common lenses would be a good choice for whom building cheap and mobile lens kit. Olympus itself is a bit like that; the original name was Takachiho Optical Co, Mt Takachiho being a mountain on which the Sun God is supposed to have ascended to heaven.

Looking for a name with resonance in the West, they went with Olympus as being a mountain of the gods.. Wonderful to see such an in-depth passionately written article David! Great work! The old photos and experience you bring to the mix really makes for an interesting read. Thanks Jim! Yeah it was a labour of love. Jannik has a child with no open daycare or school, and Bastian and Juriaan are also busier than usual.

Thanks for this interesting comprehensive article. Do the Sony A7 cameras differ in suitability for the use of OM-lenses e. The A7 cameras are pretty much ideal platforms for using OM lenses, unless you want to play with film Obviously the sensor is the correct size, and the EVF allows much more accurate focus than was possible with an SLR, even one with a good focus screen and prism like the best OMs.

You missed out my favourite OM lens; the 85 f2! I used it to photogragh my 2 daughters growng up; it was the perfect focal length for superstitious portraits.

I have an OM1 body with a 50 f1. Good grief! I did too! It was only an oversight! I have samples and opinions. A small correction on the 16mm fisheye. The only OM lens I still have. It is really small. Gives a vintage look to photos. Lots of light falloff. Sharp in the center, but not so much towards the edges. The Sammy is cheap and pretty good across the frame, bigger than the OM though. What a good read! I have both 21mm f2 and f3.

The Olympus 21mm f2 is actually sharper than the f3. Thanks Oscar. I found the reverse with the two samples I had back then: yes the f2 was on a par wide open with the f3. But with these older lenses, there is a lot of sample variation, both original and through time, so it may depend on the particular pair one has! Never enough. I mean that the software can correct it either in the center area or at the edge, not both.

I hope to find other articles about OM lenses in this blog: there are a lot of interesting lenses! I agree with you about the LaCA of the 3. One solution is two correction copies, and then stack them.

Unless perhaps you have compared it on Kolari and non-Kolari Sony bodies. That would be interesting. Ah, visible field curvature is much more common in wide angle lenses than teles.

And things like FC are very hard to spot on projected slides where the non flatness of the slide, unless you use glass mounts, is likely a bigger factor anyway. The issue with UWAs on digital sensors relates to rangefinder lenses of symmetrical design — very specific. I also was a Zuikoholic and liked almost all of them. Most were sold and I only kept one kit. There is no wide angle that I am completely happy with, so I can swap it. As David told the 2,8 3,5 are mostly a little sharper, the 2er got the nicer rendering and for my hands the better handeling.

I love the 50mm and 90mm 2. The only Zuiko lenses that will always stay with me. I also had the CV 65mm 2 and CV 2. They are both for me as manual focus lenses too big,too heavy and the Zuikos are so much smoother to use. The image quality is similarly good. Especially with the 90mm. Both are with the largest and heaviest Zuikos, but for what they do they are very light and small. I can just recommend them. Wonderful and cheap lenses. Not cheap any more, but maybe cheaper than the CVs.

Actually you are right about one thing: alhough large by Zuiko standards, they are smaller than the CVs, and almost as good, so might make sense for someone wanting to save some space in their kit. Could you please include a couple of photos of OM lenses on Sony camera? For overall impression about how it looks like.

In a few weeks when we can go to the city I might do that! I really like both the composition and the post production style I often find it very difficult. Even in these shots from film.

A few comments of my own, having gone through several OM lenses. My focus is mainly on landscapes and travelling, often in the mountains, where size and weight are essential. Very sharp in the center, corners sharpen up decently stopping down. Very almost extremely high vignetting, which is still high stopped down. One of the few lenses I really feel the need to use a PP profile on. Flare seems better than most comparable lenses of its time. Pretty much what the others said.

For a while it was my ideal mountain lens, but the Loxia 25 chased it out the door…. Very sharp and tiny. Not kept. Also nice rendering, very nice stopped down a little. Mine flared fairly easily. Nice for macro, nice for portraits, nice for landscapes. It replaced my Summicron 90 for portrait use. The Tokina 90 2. Wish it were a bit lighter though. I have many Zuikos, all multicoated, all excellent shape, and many late versions.

Tested on tripod mounted A7R3 using evf magnification with tuned shimmed and flocked Novoflex adapter, all are very sharp centrally, comparable to Sony , , Batis Main differences are Zuikos have more moderate contrast not necessarily bad and easily corrected , somewhat less flare control, generally more CA mostly 18f3.

More so than most brands, Zuikos seem optimized for closer rather than infinity range. Condition is critical to performance. My is quite sharp, but was rebuilt many samples suffer from element separation with loss of sharpness. Standouts are 18f3. Mostly use on film, as native Sony glass AF makes for faster and easier use on people.

Mostly matching my experience. My experience of the late 25 and the MC version is the opposite of yours; better contrast and central resolution, similar corners. Though not AB companion. The Loxia 25 is a wonderful lens of course. The Zuiko I now use on film only. There are better replacements for them all if you care mainly about IQ and have plenty of money. The little Zuikos make sense. I should note that comparisons done on maximum pixel peeping level on Sony A7r3 screen.

Also, many other vintage lenses I have — Tamron SP, Vivitar Series 1 lenses in excellent condition also perform very well. Tests done without tripod and without focusing using maximum evf magnification are suspect as I have found that barely perceptible changes in focus settings can yield meaningful differences in sharpness.

Focusing adapted lenses on Dslrs except using max magnified liveview is simply not critical enough to ensure max sharpness. Focus peaking also is not precise enough. Focus three to five separate times and choose the best one. If you are interested in closer performance, and you want to know how its single plane performance is, alignment becomes crucial.

Either laser alignment and three shots. Or careful manual alignment, re align about seven times, and run statistics on the result would do. Heavy tripod, focus each part of field separately, three distinct focus takes, pick the best one at each location. Of course all this only tells you how your particular lens performs. Variation between samples often exceeded variation between models in this era.

Thank you for a comprehensive and very balanced review. Since that was such a good experience I got inspired by another reviewer of vintage lenses and bought the 50f1. I do like that one too, just not nearly as much. Yes the 50 1. The 2.

I loved reading the Blog. My OM 4 Tis are still in use. However I love analog solide rendering my A7ii is more and more in use. But I miss working with the multi spot metering. Its incredible! Loved my 21 3. In comparison to the Sony Fe 1. Same about the Sony Macro which is similar sharp as the oly but starts from f 2. My 21 is a Great copy. About ca and vignetting is all saied.

Did not like the 35 2 and 2. Still checking my new planar 50 Macro against the oly. The Sony macro of course goes to whereas the Zuiko 90 only goes to half life size. The zuiko is as you say a more universal lens. While the Sony is good in the normal range, it really shines at high magnifications.

Thanks Calvin! Another great article guys. I have a lovely set covering mm for use on an nm converted Sony A7. Zuiko etc so they ought be just as good.