Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I have been contemplating this lens. Small, light, fast - all that is good. But is it any good? What is your impression/opinion on resolution and contrast, flare resistance, bokeh and aberrations?A lovely lens from the Olympus Pen F lens line that makes very nice photographs. Small, light, fast ...
I've only used it a little ... 70mm is fairly long for my usual shooting .. and mostly shooting wide open to two stops down. It impresses me as being much the same character as the G.Zuiko 40mm f/1.4: a little soft wide open with lovely imaging quality, and extremely sharp, contrasty by f/2.8-4 with similar bokeh.I have been contemplating this lens. Small, light, fast - all that is good. But is it any good? What is your impression/opinion on resolution and contrast, flare resistance, bokeh and aberrations?
What i really would like to know is if it beats the CV 75/2.5 Color Heliar which is an excellent lens. The Pen FT 70/2 is faster... but what about the other parameters?
If it behaves similar to the 40/1.4 I think I would like it. Using a good hood is a given to me and perhaps more important than usual with the Pen FT lenses in general (judging from comments at various places on the Net).I've only used it a little ... 70mm is fairly long for my usual shooting .. and mostly shooting wide open to two stops down. It impresses me as being much the same character as the G.Zuiko 40mm f/1.4: a little soft wide open with lovely imaging quality, and extremely sharp, contrasty by f/2.8-4 with similar bokeh.
I've had both the Pentax 77/1.8 and 70/2.4 Limiteds (used with Pentax DSLR format cameras) and I'd say it's about on par with them, although I think they might be just a hair sharper when wide open. It's certainly in that ball park. I found the 77 to be a match to my old Leica Summilux-M 75/1.4. I've not had the Color Heliar 75/2.5 to be able to say how it performed.
I've always used it with the lens hood as shown: I've not seen any evidence of significant flare.
An efficient lens hood makes sense on the Pen F lenses ... they are after all from the 1960s, prior to multicoating ... that said I don't see flare as too intrusive even without it on the 40mm.If it behaves similar to the 40/1.4 I think I would like it. Using a good hood is a given to me and perhaps more important than usual with the Pen FT lenses in general (judging from comments at various places on the Net).
The Color Heliar performs very similar to the FA77, the LTM mount version maybe even better than the SL version.
A problem I recall with the FA77 was the CA that always was present, sometimes also in smaller prints. Do you see alot of it with the Olympus 70/2?
I've heard exactly the opposite from other people using the 60/1.5 lens and 70/2 lens, Vivek. I don't know who is right as I have never used the 60/1.5. The 70/2 I've got here has very little flare even wide open, far as I can see. It has some, yes ... it's not a lot by any means.You can put as a long hood as you want but the flare (and as a result lower contrast) wide open is there. It has been that way for me >10 years and it has not got any better with digital.
This is not an odd user experience either. Those who are familiar with Pen F lenses know it is true about the 70/2.
The 60/1.5, on the other hand, does not have this problem, even wide open.
The 100/3.5 (though slower) does not have this flare/low contrast issues at all.
I can live with single coating.An efficient lens hood makes sense on the Pen F lenses ... they are after all from the 1960s, prior to multicoating ... that said I don't see flare as too intrusive even without it on the 40mm.
I don't recall a CA problem with the FA77 (later on I'll look through my library and see what I find). I've not used the 70/2 enough to really get a feel for CA characteristics yet, but I don't think it's intrusive as I didn't do any CA corrections at all on the photos I posted from it.
I think the 70/2 does a quite lovely job, just like the 40/1.4 which is a very similar design.Thanks for that Godfrey. Wide open, there is sort of a vintage Sonnar glow on the top of the fence (akin to a 50s Nikkor 50/1.4 or a CZO Sonnar 50/1.5) but it is pretty much gone by f/2.8. Some people call this 'veiling flare', it's inherent to the design. I presume these were taken with the shade?
On my old Nikkor, stopping down only a half-stop is enough to do away with the veiling flare and increase contrast. I wonder if the same thing is true of the Zuiko 70/2...
One of the common ways to test for veiling flare is to photograph something like the WhiBal card wide open into the sun or a bright light. Then look at the black area of the card once you have the file in photoshop and see what is the black level. Obviously something approaching 0 is ideal. Then repeat the same test at various apertures each time looking at the black level. If the lens has substantial veiling flare (i.e. light that bounces around inside the lens reducing contrast) you should see the black level improve continuously as you go to smaller and smaller apertures. Not super scientific but a very good first approximationThanks for that Godfrey. Wide open, there is sort of a vintage Sonnar glow on the top of the fence (akin to a 50s Nikkor 50/1.4 or a CZO Sonnar 50/1.5) but it is pretty much gone by f/2.8. Some people call this 'veiling flare', it's inherent to the design. I presume these were taken with the shade?
On my old Nikkor, stopping down only a half-stop is enough to do away with the veiling flare and increase contrast. I wonder if the same thing is true of the Zuiko 70/2...