A group of old primes on a G1

[RichA]

Ì was curious how they'd compare to each other.

Just an informal test of some of them.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/a_slew_of_primes

 

[JBurnett]

Interesting. Any personal conclusions?

 

[Pat Donnelly]

Excellent! Thanks. Very interesting differences. Disappointed in the OM 50.

 

[RichA]

Interesting. Any personal conclusions?

I think the semi-pancake Nikon Series E 50mm f1.8 turned in a good performance and it is lightweight.

 

[RichA]

Excellent! Thanks. Very interesting differences. Disappointed in the OM 50.

I've owned about 10 of them. They control colour aberrations well, much better than the Canon, and they blur out (don't know how) the background more than a 1.8 should.

 

[pellicle]

Excellent! Thanks. Very interesting differences. Disappointed in the OM 50.

why?

perhaps the DoF was shallower than you've expected (and shallow is good if you ask me)

 

[pellicle]

Hi

Ì was curious how they'd compare to each other.

Just an informal test of some of them.

nice to see ... I agree with your above comments about the OM lens, I found that compared to Canon FD 1.8 it blurred background more and yet gave better colour rendition too. That's something which was a bit challenging to pick in your chosen location.

I did something similar (though not as exhaustive) here:

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2009/06/comparing-legacy-35mm-adapted-fifties.html
http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2009/11/fifites-fd-14-compared-to-om-18.html
http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2010/02/micro-four-thirds-four-fifties-flare.html