Oh well, more to say about this guy's reviews . . .
The third of his five greatest vintage lenses is the Nikkor 50/2. I mostly agree with him about this one. I had a Nikon
Ftn with this lens. I fell in love with the OM-1 when it came out, bought one. I liked the OM-1 much more than the
Nikon, but the OM 50/1.8 was a much crappier lens than the Nikkor, not as sharp, poorer color.
I'm thankful I shot Havasu Canyon back in '69 with the Nikkor.
This plays back into the first video, where he has nice things to say about the 50/1.8, and comments on how it's
development only made small changes - Bosh. The early ones just aren't that good. The late ones are quite good.
The Nikkor is an excellent lens, but top five, nah.
Then he goes nuts for a Canon FD 50/1.4. What? That lens is so close to contemporary lenses that I can't see the point.
Shoot with a new OMZ 25/1.2. The interesting vintage Canon 50-ish lenses are the LTM 50/1.2 and FL 58/1.2.
In yet another video, "The One Lens To Rule Them All!", he picks the OM 55/1.2. I've never had one, but concluded from
on-line images that it did nothing "vintage" that the older lenses above didn't do as well or better.
Seems to me that he has rather narrow and a bit pedestrian tastes in the sea of
old lenses.
Back to the OM lenses, I wouldn't argue with the 100/2.8, although I could equally go with it's close sibling, the
85/2. As to the 135/3.5, I've shot it next to the 135/2.8, and I liked the images from the faster one better.
More Moose Opinionation
On 9/4/2025 9:56 AM, Moose wrote:
On 9/3/2025 3:56 AM, wayne.harridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7AhnbS_10U
Already an error before 2.5 minutes in. He assumes his 35/2.8 is multi-coated from a black front ring, "one of the
later Olympus black nosed lenses". BUT, the ID ring is G.Zuiko and the serial number is 208187, an early, single
coated lens.
Either ID ring or outer ring is wrong, probably a repair result. Any of us old hands could tell from internal
reflections what it actually is. At a guess from the reflections in the video, I guess old, SC. So perhaps a bent
filter ring replacement?
I skipped over to his "My Five BEST Vintage Lenses - UPDATED!"
His second is:
"It's a fairly humble looking and feeling little thing. It's the Konica 40 mm
f1.8. And
this is such a beautiful lens that again I'm going to have difficulty explaining
just how nice it is. It's absolutely gorgeous. I used this lens for street
work primarily, but it's also great for general work as well. There's just
something about a 40 mm lens that on full-frame cameras, on a 35 mil film
camera or a full-frame digital camera, 40 mm just works. It's special.
It does something magical. There's just something about the relationship of
this focal length to this full frame 24x 36
mil I think it is that just works beautifully. "
This lens is also a member of my vintage film lens menagerie. I've not shot it much, as the initial images just didn't
much interest me. I do notice that the bokeh in his examples doesn't do much for me, but did I miss something? Ah
well, perhaps when I get home I'll look at it again. But - top five lenses - Nah.
Warning, more reactions may follow . . .
Disagreeable Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
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/
|