The 60mm f1.5 Olympus Pen Ft lens was designed to be used on the Olympus half frame film cameras that were introduced back in the 1960's and discontinued in the 1970s. Many of the lenses for that small, compact and efficient system were of very high performance when introduced. And a handful of the standard-to-longer focal length lenses were also made with very fast apertures. My three favorites of the time are the 60mm f1.5, the 40mm f1.4 and the 70mm f2.0. All of these lenses covered the APS-C image circle and amply cover the micro four thirds image circle.
I originally started buying micro four thirds cameras not because they were small or light or small and light but because the lens flange to sensor distance was small enough to allow the use of adapters to mount my old Pen FT lenses on modern, digital cameras and still keeping the ability to focus to infinity. I've circled back to m4:3 for a variety of reasons but a big part of my decision making it the ability to use my collection of zany old half frame lenses on a current body. This kind of lens adaptation just wasn't possible with DSLR cameras. Not at all.
A weird trio of mechanical lenses, two on new cameras and the 60mm
sitting right up front. Battery included to both show size and because
I was too lazy to move it out of the frame. There is black tape
on the barrel of the 60mm because the lens cap that came with it has the
felt smooshed down and the tape adds some friction to keep the cap on.
While wide angle lenses from the "good old days" show their age with obvious corner unsharpness, lower contrast and a profound propensity for flaring with even the tiniest hint of light or specular highlights in the frame it appears that the telephoto and near telephoto lenses of the day were easier to design and make without having too many obvious faults. The teles tend to age well.
The Pen FT lenses are all fully mechanical in every sense. There is absolutely no communication between the lens and any camera you use it on. There is no automatic stop down mechanism either. You can focus with the lens wide open and then manually stop it down to the taking aperture you want or you can take your chances and focus with the lens stopped down to that aperture. There are compromises in either direction. I choose to stop the lens down and then focus. That covers, to a certain extent, focus shift. But the greater depth of field lowers your ability to exactly gauge the real point of sharp focus unless you take full advantage of focus magnification via the camera.
I have, on occasion, used the 60mm f1.5 as a portrait lens on micro four thirds bodies as well as on a few Sony cropped frame cameras --- most notably the New-7. While it's not quite sharp enough when used wide open (at least for my tastes) it does a good job at f2.0 and it's really, really good from f2.8 onward.
I think the lenses of the time were designed to be of lower contrast, perhaps because many photographers were doing their own darkroom work and could use the lower contrast of the initial image to maintain more apparent dynamic range while being able to fine tune their contrast when they printed their black and white prints. Either with graded papers or with multi-contrast papers. The upshot is that if you want images make with the 60mm to match up with current lenses you'll likely want to add a bit of contrast and make use of the clarity sliders in post production to get a similar effect. But to my way of thinking this lower contrast is a feature and not a "deal-breaker."
Since I decided to walk yesterday on the spur of the moment I didn't have time to engage a supermodel with which to test the highest and best use of this lens. That would be using the lens to photograph people. So I had to make due with my usual building shots and downtown errata and ephemerata. I suggest you click on the images to make them pop up bigger.
I am constantly impressed with how seamlessly older lenses work on Panasonic m4:3 cameras with adapters. The cameras (G9, GH5ii and GH6) prompt the user to enter the correct focal length of a legacy lens when the camera is turned on. This informs the camera of a parameter that is important to the optimal functioning of image stabilization. The cameras also seem to be good at nailing both color and exposure when used in aperture priority mode.
The 60mm f1.5 is a much sought after lens. Currently minty copies go for a bit over $750. Mine is hardly minty and probably doesn't even qualify as "good." But it's not quite into "bargain" territory yet and I hope to keep it that way.
The walk was uneventful and gave me lots to time to try and understand my attraction to the GH and G series cameras when I already own various full frame Leica SL(x) cameras and full frame Panasonic cameras. I'll try to cover that in an upcoming post. It's interesting to me that m4:3 format did not die when the online savants predicted it would and in fact is experiencing a renaissance of appreciation these days.
I'm sure my peers in Japan would not like me to divulge this but according to some sources the m4:3 cameras are the top selling cameras in that country. More advanced and knowledgable camera buyers? Probably. But there's more to the appeal than just momentum...
Click through and see how well lens designers succeeded nearly six decades ago. And ask yourself why lens design isn't even better these days...
I had a reason to photograph this fence/barrier.
It's shiny metal and I wanted to see how the lens handled the specular highlights.
The frame blow is a very tight close up crop of the photo.
Note the flaring of the horizontal strands. I'm going to call that:
Micro flare.
Not a BBQ pit but an auxiliary machine driving fans at a power plant.
Not cropped. Just a tight 120mm equivalent angle of view.
A different optical "feel" to the files than a modern lens delivers.
Bag of fresh coffee for the boy.
the 60mm f1.5 is more than sharp enough for most work I would use it for with m4:3.
In all the shots with clothing I could easily see the weave of fabric when punching in.
In my book that means "resolution."
9 comments:
I, for one, don't see anything 'lacking' with this lens. Okay, the micro-flare you mention might be an issue in certain situations, but perhaps we can view it in a different light and call it character. I've a decent collection of vintage lenses I use occasionally on my S5's, and agree one of the best attributes to using a mirrorless body is the ability to play around with 'old glass'. I'm convinced - all the photographers were lacking back in those days was in-camera focusing aids to alert them when a subject was in focus. The ability to enlarge the subject and rely on focus peaking seems almost like cheating, but makes the experience of using older lenses so much more enjoyable than otherwise possible. It also shows just how well these old lenses are capable of performing. Perhaps the physics of designing good lenses is more constant than dynamic? That's way beyond my knowledge base. But I like your description of how they differ from contemporary lenses. I've always thought they have a different look - plenty of detail but somehow softer, and in a very pleasing way. It seems, at least with my samples, they capture more than enough color saturation. Maybe the real pleasure in using these in the tactile feel of manually focusing. Good stuff all around.
Oh, and I have a question for you if you don't mind. I'm looking at adding some new flash units to replace my aging and broken down portable lighting. I'm liking the Godox system with its ability to expand while using the same radio trigger. You seem to be pleased with the system, and your needs are more demanding than mine. I'm not a user of TTL flash, but would benefit from being able to change flash power from the trigger itself. I'm looking at either the XPro or X2T triggers. Both would seem to work for my needs, but I like the lower profile of the X2T. Your thoughts?
Nice and with character. The microflare I guess is residual spherical aberration when the lens is used near wide open, but vanishes when stopped down a bit (???), likely a handy property. Perhaps like the Walter Mandler designs that had a “glow” wide open which was great for portraits, but stopped down became very sharp indeed.
Ronman, I've been using the X1T Godox Triggers. I have one dedicated to Olympus/Panasonic and one left over from my Fuji days. You can go into the custom function menu and turn off the dedicated contacts leaving only the center sync contact live. This is how I have the Fuji trigger set so I can use it with the Leica cameras which seem to be unsupported by 99% of flash makers. In this way nothing shorts out. It's a dumb connection. You can still use the remote to set various flash levels via the remote but you can't use TTL when you have the trigger set up like that.
I've thought about the Pro but haven't used one yet. As you know I've very frugal and rarely ever buy new gear. :-)
I'm currently using 3 Godox AD200s for all my location work and the triggers work great. I also have two of the Godox DP400iii monolights for studio work. I use them interchangeably with the AD200 but I like the bigger lights in the studio because they have traditional 150 watt modeling lamps and that's a luxury extra for long days of shooting.
I haven't heard any complaints from fellow photographers about Godox lights. No known issues. No reliability problems. I also have five of their LED lights and all have been reliable.. If you have time and you get one of the other triggers can you circle back and tell me how well it works? I might sell some plasma or something and try to get one horribly used sample off EBay.
EdPledger, I'm thinking that as long as you stay away from small, specular highlights the lens will perform well. And yes, I think it has a lot of character. Thanks!
Appreciate the detailed information and feedback, Kirk. I'm looking forward to using some newer - and fully functional strobes. I'll absolutely return the favor and circle back with my observations and experiences when I get the gear and try it out on my S5's. And yes, you have been overtly frugal in equipment purchases these past few years. Borderline cheap, even. If the Godox gear works out as we hope it does, I'll be happy to help you out with a gear loan until your equipment funds are removed from life support. Save your plasma. As a non-medical professional, I'm thinking you'll need it down the road.
As your images contiue to show - nearly any lens will work fine for many photographs. Even a "junk" lens with problems can be used for some..., call it "Art" and you are just fine.(think Sally Mann here)
Choosing a LOOK based on specific "impervections" has long been a staple of the photographers bag of tricks.
Strobes! Geez I am trying to thin the herd here and I found an old set of strobes and a huge power pack to run them. I bet I can't even give it away.
One of the things that got me really jazzed up about the m43 system is the ability to use most of my old lens from the 70's on up. Some are just crap and others are stellar. As mentioned above many just fall into the "art" category. To be honest the crappy ones were crappy way back then as well.
I can see why you love those old half frame lenses and have hung on to them for all these years.
Take out all the electronics and in body lens corrections and I wonder just how far optical lens design has come in the last several decades. A touch better contrast and less flare, that's about all I can see. What's your feelings on that Kirk?
Eric
I think you are absolutely right Eric. There are some older lenses that I still use today on high end cameras like the SL2. One in particular is the Nikon 50mm f1.4 manual lens. With a post shot bump of contrast and a little twizzle of the "texture" slider it's on par with many much newer lenses. I think some lenses were just better built back then. And I think we're correcting some optical "flaws" nowadays at the expense of other "positives." For example older lenses with fewer elements should mean better contrast but you lose some corrections like corner sharpness. Newer lenses might (might) correct for corner sharpness and field curvature but at the expense of geometric distortion which then has to be corrected with software and causes varying degrees of sharpness through the frame as well as other unintended trade-offs.
I think we're seeing the homogenization of lenses which sucks the individual character right out of them. Sadly.
It's like our society, everything has to be homogenized. Just look at cars. They all look the same for the most part. No individualism allowed.
Back in the day picking the lens that gave you the look you wanted was just as important as the film you chose. I have an old Bushnell 135mm f2.8 lens that is just great for slightly soft portraits of women of a certain age. Ya I know you can do that in the darkroom or PS but it was just fun to discover these interesting lenses.
Eric
Post a Comment