Olympus has been assigning the Zuiko name to its range of high-quality lenses since 1936. Zuiko-branded lenses were made for SLR, rangefinder, and automatic point-and-shoot cameras in medium format, 35mm, and even half-frame formats. Assessing the best of anything in photography leads to vivid debate and lots of room for subjectivity. Here are my 5 reasons why I believe Olympus knocked it out of the park with their Zuiko range, and when you look at all factors are the best film lenses ever made. Be sure to leave a comment to let me know your thoughts.
My partner took this portrait of me on my OM-10 with the standard 50mm and Kodak Ultramax 400. While the focus is a little soft, it's a perfect example of the way this combo renders red spectacularly.
Character
A key reason for the resurgence in popularity of vintage lenses both for film shooters and those adapting them to digital is the individual characteristics they hold, and the Zuiko range is no exception. In my experience using the standard 50mm with a range of film stocks, reds in particular pop out whilst not bleeding or looking over-saturated. Like many lenses of the pre-digital era, the sharpness at f/1.8 isn’t on par with what can be achieved with more modern gear, but the look and feel of the image and the transitions between the in and out-of-focus zones have a creamy and progressive nature that I really love. I recently acquired the 50mm f/1.4 from a local camera company and tested it with a roll of Ilford FP4 and was impressed even further with the way the images were rendered. I can’t wait to use it again with color-negative film to see if it pops even more than the standard lens.
While often overshadowed by more "enthusiast" offerings, the humble OM-10 gives you a small and light weight mount for the excellent Zuiko range.
Size
Olympus’ most famous and widely used Zuiko lenses were designed for their OM range of SLR film cameras from 1972 to 2002. Their first iteration of this design was called the M-1 but they were soon pressured by Leica into changing the name, which shows the playing field Olympus was in at the time. The OM range of Zuiko glass is extensive, but they share common design elements of a smaller size to competitors, consistency in build quality, and quirks such as the aperture dial being placed towards the front of the lens (to leave space between it and the shutter speed dial).
Compared to SLRs by Canon and Nikon, both the body and lenses made by Olympus were lighter and smaller by a significant margin. The weight of an OM-10 with the standard 50mm comes in around 645 grams, an OM-2 with the very slightly larger 50mm f/1.4 is still just 755 grams. Compared to something like a Pentax K1000 that’s over 600 grams before you select a lens, or a Spotmatic with 50mm f/1.4 over 900 grams, your neck and shoulders will love you for choosing Olympus.
Using vintage lenses on digital cameras has boomed in popularity since mirrorless technology has evolved, but using an adapter adds bulk and weight to your rig. The compact size and low weight of Olympus lenses make them perfect for this application, and you may find they allow you to get a perfect balance point as well as crisp images. Speaking of small, the Olympus Pen half-frame film camera is so diminutive most who are uninitiated have trouble believing it’s a true SLR. The half-frame lenses are tiny and can also be adapted to some digital cameras, but if you’re planning to do this check before buying as there are variables in compatibility so do your research first.
An Olympus OM-2 in black with the brilliant 50mm f1.4 mounted.
Cost
If you do a Google search you can find people who believe vintage Zuiko Lenses can hold their own in image quality and sharpness against those of Leica from the same era. That’s not a debate I’m willing to get into, but considering the disparity in cost between the two brands, the fact that it’s even a discussion point is my second reason Zuiko is the best overall film era lenses. While you may pay Leica money for a mint condition Zuiko 50mm f/1.2, the f/1.4 and even f/1.8 that came standard on many bodies are widely available, can be found for bargain prices, and will produce images that I believe any discerning photographer could be proud of.
A picture I took of my son using the 50mm f1.4 on Ilford FP4.
Quality
Alongside their film cameras, Olympus built its reputation making high-quality imaging equipment such as microscopes for medical and scientific purposes. This demand for precision undoubtedly trickled across to their vintage Zuiko range as you won’t find a single lens in the line-up that isn’t built to a very high standard, unlike some of the cheap plastic kit lens offerings available today.
Notice the shutter speed adjustment near the lens mount and the aperture ring towards the filter thread on the OM-2.
Range
While I love the 50mm focal length in the OM system, there is an extensive range of primes available including a 28mm f/2, 350mm f/2.8, and everything you can imagine or need in between. I recently tested the 40mm f/1.4 on an Olympus Pen FT and was so blown away by the results even in half-frame format that I immediately announced to my family I wanted one for my upcoming 30th birthday.
The depth of red color rendition even the standard 50mm zuiko lens can create has taken my breath away many times when first viewing the scans. This image was created with CineStill Film's new 400D.
Whilst I am partial to the Pentax range of Takumar lenses with their beautiful and unique results, I just can't go past the OM system and the range of Zuiko glass to pair them with. Let me know your thoughts in the comments below on these film-era Zuiko range of Olympus lenses and share other brands you enjoy using when shooting film or adapting to digital cameras.
Lucy Lumen is an avid analog shooter and content creator on the sunny Gold Coast of Australia. Lucy spends most of her time sharing her adventures in film photography on her YouTube channel and has now ventured into the world of podcasting, where she interviews fellow photographers about their creative process and inspiration.
They are all shot on film. Film never looks as sharp as digital, and that's one of the delights of it. Similarly, all vintage lenses are softer than modern glass. That also has great appeal to those of us who use vintage lenses.
0
0
Deleted Account[Edited]
For some reason, I can't respond to Ivor or Jan.
I would just point out, I didn't say anything rude in my OP. I don't have a problem with someone stating an opinion, but the question was ridiculous on its face. If you don't want definitive responses to such questions, stop using clickbait headlines.
As far as I can tell, you guys are just running to the defence of a pretty young woman, for no apparent reason. But maybe you genuinely do believe a particular piece of gear will make you a better photographer, by giving your images some special secret sauce - and if you do, you'll always suck.
Jon, you said "I can't work out whether stupid or white knighting. Although, the two aren't mutually exclusive" That is incredibly rude. As is, "you'll always suck".
Anyone is entitled to an opinion and Lucy is a known and highly respected film photographer and a fabulous and successful photographic artist. You are clearly ignorant of that. She is entitled to an opinion. Her experience and the high regard in which she is held within the industry give her opinions a great deal of authority.
She doesn't say that having a piece of gear makes you a better photographer, that's an assertion you brought up in your comment, a lie you made up as a stick to beat her with.
When people make troll-like comments like yours, the biggest damage it does is to themselves. The number of negative comments Lucy has received on her excellent articles, all from men, reveals a foul stink of misogyny. It isn't white knighting, it's demonstrating support for someone whose respected opinion is suffering an unwarranted attack. I would do the same for anyone no matter their age, race, sex, gender, or shoe size.
Lucy did not ask for a critique of her article nor of her photography, which you and others chose to do in a negative tone. If she had wanted that, I am sure if she needed that she would have chosen another respected writer or accomplished photographer, as opposed to cowards hiding behind a false persona.
This was my original comment, that you down voted.
"No.
All lenses are a series of compromises. These compromises are far more pronounced in vintage lenses - before the advent of computer aided design and manufacture masterpieces of clinical perfection. The consequence of this is each lens has its own character.
It's not a question of which is the "best", it's a question of which tool is the best fit for your creative vision."
So stupid it is.
At no stage did I comment on anyone's work; however, since you opened that door. I note from your writing, you're questioning your own work; you should be, it's derivative, bland, and forgettable.
And I honestly don't think the most provocative writer on the site should be levelling accusations of trolling.
Yeah, but Jon. I am making a healthy living from my photography, writing, and collectors buy my prints too. Perhaps it's your opinion that's wrong. There are others whose points of view I value far more. Thanks for calling me the most provocative writer though. I'll wear that as a badge of honor.
The lens I have must be the greatest lens of all time as I have it. The fact I’ve not used or compared it to the thousands of other lenses ever manufactured is unimportant. It’s all about what I happen to believe.
How often are articles produced and posted here on just that basis? A photographer has something, likes that something and suddenly in their mind it becomes the greatest thing of its kind with almost magical properties. No longer a hunk of metal and glass.
If that’s not a delusional way of thinking I don’t know what is. To publish a whole article on that basis of a belief supported by a couple of iffy photographs is plain ridiculous. Photography is beset with individuals trying to stand out from the crowd and to do that in the world of photography is not easy as producing a set of jaw dropping images that set the heather alight is a huge task. Why? Because photography is difficult and being original with a new slant on image making requires a lot of graft and commitment. Much easier to make some meaningless claim regarding some of the equipment they have lying around and how it does something truly wonderful while offering no wonderful photographic evidence to support said claim.
When are people going to stop this and realise great photographs are not made by magic lenses they are made by great photographers.
This is not an angry statement I’m just stating the hard facts of life and offering an alternate opinion.
But it MUST be the greatest lens of all time because even though her partner can't focus it properly, the lens is somehow magically more responsible for the saturation of the colour red than the film, processing, or scanning is, and it therefore makes even terrible photos worth sharing if you're an influencer-wannabe.
What qualifications does one need in order to deem as terrible an out-of-focus shot supposed to illustrate a property of a lens that is not a property of lenses? Does one need to be a writer for fstoppers?
I looked at 50mm 1.4 lenses on eBay for Olympus, Pentax m42, Nikon and Canon mounts. In my unscientific survey I was surprised to see little difference in these brands. Zuikos and Takumars were a little bit lower than the other 2 but not by much. I tried to look at multi coated lenses to eliminate older lenses. I owned systems in three of these brands in the 70-90 era (not canon) and the cameras were hugely different compared to the lenses. Olympus was about size without compromising quality or system capabilities, Nikon was about the pros as it was what they used. Pentax while an early player kept to the basics. What limited them all, except Canon was the standard filter size. Tiny 49mm by Pentax and Olympus and a little larger 52 by Nikon limited their designers for making fast lenses. My background, I worked in a retail camera store through the 80s and worked for a large repair shop through the 90s in Washington DC.
The designers of the Olympus 50mm f/1.2 lens that takes a 49mm filter, as well as some of the first-ever f/2 wide angle lenses for an SLR with 55mm filters, would like to have a word with you about "limitations."
I was using a 35mm f2 Nikkor before the OM system was introduced. Maybe if you listened to people who lived this rather than read it on the internet, you could move your photography past titty pictures.
I'm still waiting to hear how you think the "tiny 49mm" filter size "limited their designers for making fast lenses" in light of the Olympus 50mm f/1.2 with 49mm filter size. Your attempt to dodge the question isn't fooling anyone.
You will be waiting a long time. It is not my choice to educate you on the basics of lens design as I see no indication you have the least understanding of the practice.
Your unwillingness to address examples that directly disprove your claims shows to everyone reading this, beyond any doubt, that you have no understanding of not only lens design, but actual reality. Go ahead and tell us more how you taking pictures 50 years ago with Nikon lenses explains your imaginary reality where Olympus was limited by 49mm filter sizes despite the fact that they made 7 primes with a 55mm filter size, or that they couldn't make fast lenses with a 49mm filter size despite the fact that the 50mm f/1.2 exists.
No, the front opening presents very different issues to lens designers. As long as the front element is the same size as the aperture it won't be limiting brightness, and making it larger just becomes more about avoiding vignetting, and it changes with the focal length of the lens, but I won't go too deeply into the specifics... just look at the diagram in the article you posted, comparing the EF and RF 35mm lenses: the RF lens is faster yet the diameter of the front element appears to be just over half the diameter of the slower EF lens. They could have given that lens a much smaller filter size and it would work just fine. So, you just proved that smaller filter diameters don't limit designers in making fast lenses, by posting an example that shoes your statement to be false.
You stated that Olympus, Pentax, and Nikon, were limited from making fast lenses due to filter sizes, specifically in the case of the Olympus lenses in this article, 49mm.
The fact that your worked in a camera store in the 80s does not make you right or wrong.
The fact that i have photographed nudes does not make me right or wrong.
The fact that Olympus not only made fast lenses with a 49mm filter size, but more importantly, was in no way limited to a 49mm filter size, is what makes your statement false. The OM system comprised:
22 lenses with 49mm filter size
18 lenses with 55mm filter size
1 lens with 62mm filter size
5 lenses with 72mm filter size
2 lenses with 100mm filter size
How could they be "limited" by a 49mm filter size when more than half their lenses used a larger filter size?
Nothing you've done or not done in your life will change that math. 1+1=2 no matter what subject matter you or I or anyone else have photographed in our lives.
Look - i get it. You've believed something for a very long time, and it turns out to be wrong. Rather than accept it and learn something new, change your mind, cognitive dissonance is kicking in hard and you're desperately trying to cling to the comfort of your old incorrect beliefs because of, of all things, one of the genres of photography I personally have worked in. If that helps you sleep better at night, go for it. Just do so quietly, to yourself, rather than spreading false information online and misleading others.
I have some Olympus cameras, an XA, 2 of the tough series, and a stylus zoom that we bought new in early 2000. Every one of them produce amazing colour and look really good overall. I also think that Zuiko lenses ( I pronounce it zookoh, I know) are some of the very best you can get. It takes three things to get a great image, glass, composition and film stock. They are great lenses, but my all time favourite lens is the Kodak Aero Ektar 147mm, that lens is just out of this world for portraits and anything else you throw at it. it has character, which I believe all lenses do.
Fun article, LL. Zuiko were certainly weird lenses to those of us brought up on Canon/Minolta/Nikon and Pentax gear, but once you got 'the vibe of the thing' they felt so good and perform so well, for years and years and years. Their front-set aperture ring takes a bit of getting used to but is brilliant once you get the hang of it. So well placed, just like Leica M lenses.
These old mf Zuikos seemed especially slow and outdated during the 1990s >, but I am glad I kept most of mine when everyone was going AF. I wish I could've kept them all, for all the reasons you mention, and more. They are so well built, strong and the grips on the focus ring are excellent, as long as they are not used by oily (essential oils?) fingers too much - then they expand and slip. The lens mounted stop-down button is also a fantastic design - so well placed and I have never had one malfunction.
Their 90/2 macro and 50 macros are as fantastic as any similarly fond articles suggest. I paid a small fortune for mine back in the day but I still use it with joy and get immense satisfaction every roll I get back from the lab. Such a solid lens, and the ability to use any number of tubes and get perfect exposures every time is tremendous, especially as film costs are rising so much compared to the 1990s.
Their telephoto lenses are wonderful too. Do you have any? They're kinda slow by most standards, but fantastic when you are aiming for contrast and sharpness.
Goodonya for going out on a limb :) Sooo many journalists hide behind "one of the best / one of the top five ... in the world." yaddah yaddah ... Love your open and honest, well explained claim.
Keep on focusing!
"Their telephoto lenses are wonderful too. Do you have any?"
I still love the 100mm ƒ/2 and the 350mm ƒ/2.8 — except for the weight. I've kept the 180mm ƒ/2.8 as a novelty — mine actually says "M-SYSTEM" on the front ring! Hope my estate gets a bundle for it someday.
I also have the 600mm ƒ/6.5, but find it under-whelming on any film body. I tried and tried and tried, and could not eliminate the characteristic one-dimensional signature of mechanical blur even with two tripods and lots of weight. I get much better results with it on an electronic shutter.
They are all shot on film. Film never looks as sharp as digital, and that's one of the delights of it. Similarly, all vintage lenses are softer than modern glass. That also has great appeal to those of us who use vintage lenses.
For some reason, I can't respond to Ivor or Jan.
I would just point out, I didn't say anything rude in my OP. I don't have a problem with someone stating an opinion, but the question was ridiculous on its face. If you don't want definitive responses to such questions, stop using clickbait headlines.
As far as I can tell, you guys are just running to the defence of a pretty young woman, for no apparent reason. But maybe you genuinely do believe a particular piece of gear will make you a better photographer, by giving your images some special secret sauce - and if you do, you'll always suck.
Jon, you said "I can't work out whether stupid or white knighting. Although, the two aren't mutually exclusive" That is incredibly rude. As is, "you'll always suck".
Anyone is entitled to an opinion and Lucy is a known and highly respected film photographer and a fabulous and successful photographic artist. You are clearly ignorant of that. She is entitled to an opinion. Her experience and the high regard in which she is held within the industry give her opinions a great deal of authority.
She doesn't say that having a piece of gear makes you a better photographer, that's an assertion you brought up in your comment, a lie you made up as a stick to beat her with.
When people make troll-like comments like yours, the biggest damage it does is to themselves. The number of negative comments Lucy has received on her excellent articles, all from men, reveals a foul stink of misogyny. It isn't white knighting, it's demonstrating support for someone whose respected opinion is suffering an unwarranted attack. I would do the same for anyone no matter their age, race, sex, gender, or shoe size.
Lucy did not ask for a critique of her article nor of her photography, which you and others chose to do in a negative tone. If she had wanted that, I am sure if she needed that she would have chosen another respected writer or accomplished photographer, as opposed to cowards hiding behind a false persona.
This was my original comment, that you down voted.
"No.
All lenses are a series of compromises. These compromises are far more pronounced in vintage lenses - before the advent of computer aided design and manufacture masterpieces of clinical perfection. The consequence of this is each lens has its own character.
It's not a question of which is the "best", it's a question of which tool is the best fit for your creative vision."
So stupid it is.
At no stage did I comment on anyone's work; however, since you opened that door. I note from your writing, you're questioning your own work; you should be, it's derivative, bland, and forgettable.
And I honestly don't think the most provocative writer on the site should be levelling accusations of trolling.
I hope it was worth taking me to task.
Yeah, but Jon. I am making a healthy living from my photography, writing, and collectors buy my prints too. Perhaps it's your opinion that's wrong. There are others whose points of view I value far more. Thanks for calling me the most provocative writer though. I'll wear that as a badge of honor.
"For some reason, I can't respond to Ivor or Jan."
That is because we've blocked you.
I don't block people I disagree with; I block people who are disagreeable. Does wonders for my blood pressure.
The lens I have must be the greatest lens of all time as I have it. The fact I’ve not used or compared it to the thousands of other lenses ever manufactured is unimportant. It’s all about what I happen to believe.
How often are articles produced and posted here on just that basis? A photographer has something, likes that something and suddenly in their mind it becomes the greatest thing of its kind with almost magical properties. No longer a hunk of metal and glass.
If that’s not a delusional way of thinking I don’t know what is. To publish a whole article on that basis of a belief supported by a couple of iffy photographs is plain ridiculous. Photography is beset with individuals trying to stand out from the crowd and to do that in the world of photography is not easy as producing a set of jaw dropping images that set the heather alight is a huge task. Why? Because photography is difficult and being original with a new slant on image making requires a lot of graft and commitment. Much easier to make some meaningless claim regarding some of the equipment they have lying around and how it does something truly wonderful while offering no wonderful photographic evidence to support said claim.
When are people going to stop this and realise great photographs are not made by magic lenses they are made by great photographers.
This is not an angry statement I’m just stating the hard facts of life and offering an alternate opinion.
But it MUST be the greatest lens of all time because even though her partner can't focus it properly, the lens is somehow magically more responsible for the saturation of the colour red than the film, processing, or scanning is, and it therefore makes even terrible photos worth sharing if you're an influencer-wannabe.
Dude you probably shouldn't be commenting on someone else's photos as being terrible. Just saying.
What qualifications does one need in order to deem as terrible an out-of-focus shot supposed to illustrate a property of a lens that is not a property of lenses? Does one need to be a writer for fstoppers?
I hope this video and article goes unnoticed. I really dont want the price of these lenses to go up anymore.
I looked at 50mm 1.4 lenses on eBay for Olympus, Pentax m42, Nikon and Canon mounts. In my unscientific survey I was surprised to see little difference in these brands. Zuikos and Takumars were a little bit lower than the other 2 but not by much. I tried to look at multi coated lenses to eliminate older lenses. I owned systems in three of these brands in the 70-90 era (not canon) and the cameras were hugely different compared to the lenses. Olympus was about size without compromising quality or system capabilities, Nikon was about the pros as it was what they used. Pentax while an early player kept to the basics. What limited them all, except Canon was the standard filter size. Tiny 49mm by Pentax and Olympus and a little larger 52 by Nikon limited their designers for making fast lenses. My background, I worked in a retail camera store through the 80s and worked for a large repair shop through the 90s in Washington DC.
"What limited them all, except Canon was the standard filter size. Tiny 49mm by Pentax and Olympus"
Olympus OM used just three standard sizes.
The consumer lenses used the 49mm filters — which were smaller, lighter, and generally cheaper than larger filters.
Many of the OM fast lenses used 55mm filters, though. And a few of the loner ones used 72mm.
It was a brilliant, well-thought-out system.
The designers of the Olympus 50mm f/1.2 lens that takes a 49mm filter, as well as some of the first-ever f/2 wide angle lenses for an SLR with 55mm filters, would like to have a word with you about "limitations."
I was using a 35mm f2 Nikkor before the OM system was introduced. Maybe if you listened to people who lived this rather than read it on the internet, you could move your photography past titty pictures.
I'm still waiting to hear how you think the "tiny 49mm" filter size "limited their designers for making fast lenses" in light of the Olympus 50mm f/1.2 with 49mm filter size. Your attempt to dodge the question isn't fooling anyone.
You will be waiting a long time. It is not my choice to educate you on the basics of lens design as I see no indication you have the least understanding of the practice.
Your unwillingness to address examples that directly disprove your claims shows to everyone reading this, beyond any doubt, that you have no understanding of not only lens design, but actual reality. Go ahead and tell us more how you taking pictures 50 years ago with Nikon lenses explains your imaginary reality where Olympus was limited by 49mm filter sizes despite the fact that they made 7 primes with a 55mm filter size, or that they couldn't make fast lenses with a 49mm filter size despite the fact that the 50mm f/1.2 exists.
This article discuss the design tradeoffs of the rear opening of the lens. The front opening presents the same issues to the designer. https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/12/26/did-canon-miss-the-memo-that...
No, the front opening presents very different issues to lens designers. As long as the front element is the same size as the aperture it won't be limiting brightness, and making it larger just becomes more about avoiding vignetting, and it changes with the focal length of the lens, but I won't go too deeply into the specifics... just look at the diagram in the article you posted, comparing the EF and RF 35mm lenses: the RF lens is faster yet the diameter of the front element appears to be just over half the diameter of the slower EF lens. They could have given that lens a much smaller filter size and it would work just fine. So, you just proved that smaller filter diameters don't limit designers in making fast lenses, by posting an example that shoes your statement to be false.
I forgot you titty photographers know everything
You stated that Olympus, Pentax, and Nikon, were limited from making fast lenses due to filter sizes, specifically in the case of the Olympus lenses in this article, 49mm.
The fact that your worked in a camera store in the 80s does not make you right or wrong.
The fact that i have photographed nudes does not make me right or wrong.
The fact that Olympus not only made fast lenses with a 49mm filter size, but more importantly, was in no way limited to a 49mm filter size, is what makes your statement false. The OM system comprised:
22 lenses with 49mm filter size
18 lenses with 55mm filter size
1 lens with 62mm filter size
5 lenses with 72mm filter size
2 lenses with 100mm filter size
How could they be "limited" by a 49mm filter size when more than half their lenses used a larger filter size?
Nothing you've done or not done in your life will change that math. 1+1=2 no matter what subject matter you or I or anyone else have photographed in our lives.
Look - i get it. You've believed something for a very long time, and it turns out to be wrong. Rather than accept it and learn something new, change your mind, cognitive dissonance is kicking in hard and you're desperately trying to cling to the comfort of your old incorrect beliefs because of, of all things, one of the genres of photography I personally have worked in. If that helps you sleep better at night, go for it. Just do so quietly, to yourself, rather than spreading false information online and misleading others.
I have some Olympus cameras, an XA, 2 of the tough series, and a stylus zoom that we bought new in early 2000. Every one of them produce amazing colour and look really good overall. I also think that Zuiko lenses ( I pronounce it zookoh, I know) are some of the very best you can get. It takes three things to get a great image, glass, composition and film stock. They are great lenses, but my all time favourite lens is the Kodak Aero Ektar 147mm, that lens is just out of this world for portraits and anything else you throw at it. it has character, which I believe all lenses do.
Fun article, LL. Zuiko were certainly weird lenses to those of us brought up on Canon/Minolta/Nikon and Pentax gear, but once you got 'the vibe of the thing' they felt so good and perform so well, for years and years and years. Their front-set aperture ring takes a bit of getting used to but is brilliant once you get the hang of it. So well placed, just like Leica M lenses.
These old mf Zuikos seemed especially slow and outdated during the 1990s >, but I am glad I kept most of mine when everyone was going AF. I wish I could've kept them all, for all the reasons you mention, and more. They are so well built, strong and the grips on the focus ring are excellent, as long as they are not used by oily (essential oils?) fingers too much - then they expand and slip. The lens mounted stop-down button is also a fantastic design - so well placed and I have never had one malfunction.
Their 90/2 macro and 50 macros are as fantastic as any similarly fond articles suggest. I paid a small fortune for mine back in the day but I still use it with joy and get immense satisfaction every roll I get back from the lab. Such a solid lens, and the ability to use any number of tubes and get perfect exposures every time is tremendous, especially as film costs are rising so much compared to the 1990s.
Their telephoto lenses are wonderful too. Do you have any? They're kinda slow by most standards, but fantastic when you are aiming for contrast and sharpness.
Goodonya for going out on a limb :) Sooo many journalists hide behind "one of the best / one of the top five ... in the world." yaddah yaddah ... Love your open and honest, well explained claim.
Keep on focusing!
"Their telephoto lenses are wonderful too. Do you have any?"
I still love the 100mm ƒ/2 and the 350mm ƒ/2.8 — except for the weight. I've kept the 180mm ƒ/2.8 as a novelty — mine actually says "M-SYSTEM" on the front ring! Hope my estate gets a bundle for it someday.
I also have the 600mm ƒ/6.5, but find it under-whelming on any film body. I tried and tried and tried, and could not eliminate the characteristic one-dimensional signature of mechanical blur even with two tripods and lots of weight. I get much better results with it on an electronic shutter.