Olympus G. Zuiko 55mm f/1.2 (Vintage Bokeh Monster) | Round Glass Review

[@photomaster1]

Thank you for taking the time for your views about this lens.. very nice images and hey the music is working with this too.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you too!

[@Niskovic1]

This lens is absolutely gorgeous. It takes some of the weirdest yet beautiful pictures I’ve ever seen. Wow!

[@marcelocampoamor4761]

Hello David, your recession of the zuiko 55 f1.2 is very good. I have varied experiences and results with Zuiko lenses using them with an adapter with digital cameras in APS-C and full format. In general, short lenses such as 24, 28, 35 to 50 mm have problems with digital sensors, resolution problems and chromatic aberrations that do not appear when those same lenses are used with film (or they are not so evident). Using those same focal lengths with Minolta lenses or Canon FD's don't seem to have the same problems. Neither with the longer Zuiko like 85 and 135mm. Which makes me think that perhaps the optical compromises Olympus made to achieve such small lenses are accentuated by sensors that unlike film are not flat. That happens with the old generation and with the most modern ones with several coating layers.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, Marcelo! That's a solid theory on the aberrations. I would expect some compromises for lenses with fewer element.

[@palmerino1965]

Bella ottica; la usavo con la pellicola nei matrimoni, anni 2000, circa. Quando sono passato al digitale con la reflex Olympus E-1, non mi piaceva la resa e l'ho venduto. L'anno scorso l'ho acquistato perché ho anche una Panasonic G9 che, grazie al Metabones 0,64x specifico per adattare le ottiche full-frame sul micro 4/3, diventa un incredibile 35mm f:0,8... 😯 Risultati davvero gradevoli, molto interessanti a tutta apertura. 🙃 Infine ho acquistato una vecchia reflex Olympus E-5 (mi piace vedere in un mirino ottico) ed inserendo un semplice anello nero opaco per restringere il cerchio di copertura, le immagini comunque sono decisamente migliori della prima esperienza descritta all'inizio. Felice di avere di nuovo questa lente. 😊

[@DavidHancock]

Molto bello! Questo è un obiettivo divertente e piacevole da usare, soprattutto a tutta apertura.

[@markschneider3915]

Very nice video, as a fan of old Olympus cameras and lenses, I really enjoyed it! I see the market thinks they are pretty good too. I wish Metabones still made Speedboosters for M4/3's cameras other than Canon. The others they made don't seem to be available anymore. The 28mm F2.8, and F3.5 are nice as well. I also found a Kiron 28 mm F2 for the x700 I bought from you, that is a very nice wide angle lens. Kiron lenses seem like bargains, ever tried any?

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, Mark! I have tried a few different Kipon lenses and they tend to perform very well. Kipon was also one of the Vivitar manufacturers, but I couldn't tell you with reliability which Vivitar lenses they made.

[@jmoss99]

David, another question. When shoot snow are you using interlaced images or something else?

[@DavidHancock]

Sony A7SII 4k 30P. This video may have been rendered work Movie Studio Platinum 17 before I switched to Resolve, if you're asking about dancing pixels.

[@mosswareproaudio6328]

I would suggest using Full Frame on that camera. The lens works great at f1.2 in full frame on my Sony A7Rii. I have it and use it there. I buy lenses to be used wide open when possible. I have 29 vintage lenses and this is one of my favorites, flaws and all. I use lenses, not to do what they cannot do, but to do what they do... and why the speed booster on the Sony A7s which is a lens that is often used to shoot stars at night, and with that fast lens? So, what we are looking at is not a review of the lens, but of the speed booster quality.

[@geofff6671]

Great review!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@funofwheels]

thanks for so useful tips of this lens, adapt to m43 it gives lots of blooming at 1.2, so make a ring with 16mm hole , glue to the end of adapter helps a lot . at F2 it is sharp enough compared to my 12-40 or 45 1.8 modern lens.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you and great idea!

[@matthiass5751]

Does it fit on a Canon 1DC! Thx

[@DavidHancock]

The specs section of this video, there's a link in the video description it that section, will cover the lens mount and that will answer your question.

[@protestagain]

Why should you do this video this evening. I have mention this one in two comments already to day. One for Richard Wong and Benj Haisch latest videos. Yes, it's a wacky lens, but I like it. It's something diffrent when you nail it.

[@protestagain]

By the way, check eBay for Zuiko 21/2.0 MF. I have that and I was surprised.

[@DavidHancock]

I completely agree. Not a particularly easy lens to use, but when it's on it is really on.

[@protestagain]

@@DavidHancock If you want a "better" lens for daily use, by the 50/1.8 version. This one, you will always think of, how to use it right, to get that artistic image.

[@DavidHancock]

@@protestagain Definitely concur. That's a lens I often recommend. Just as good if not better in very many important ways.

[@protestagain]

@@DavidHancock Did you check the Zuiko 21/2.0 MF on eBay. Last time I checked it, then the price was about $1000, now it's $5-6000 ... totally crazy!

[@jmoss99]

I now have my second Olympus OM-System G.Zuiko Auto-S 55mm f1.2 and it is NOT radioactive. The first one is! Olympus OM-System G.Zuiko Auto-S 55mm f1.2 1974 SN 117492 Radioactive 3389 CPM Olympus OM-System G.Zuiko Auto-S 55mm f1.2 1974 SN 135479 NOT or (lightly, maybe Lanthanum?) Radioactive When was the change over out of radioactive lenses for Olympus on this lens? In the 1970s, many optical manufacturers changed the ingredients to "lanthanum'' because the `` browning phenomenon '' that occurs in optical glass materials due to chemical reactions over time, causing them to turn yellow, (When using Thorium). I would like to know where in the serial numbers did this happen for this lens?

[@DavidHancock]

I have no idea.

[@jmoss99]

Pretty funny. You should learn how to use the lens.

[@DavidHancock]

You should post a link to a video, article, or anything that you've made that shows how this lens should be used.

[@jmoss99]

Can I do that? I mean referenced from KZbin? I think I would need to post a video. I am to busy for that. I am posting other videos of my band in the early 2000s. Within them are photos of the Pro Audio gear I designed and manufacture. I think originally, when KZbin came out we could post a photo with our comments. My approach is to use tools in ways that they, by chance, are good at. In the case of this lens it is very good at f1.2 in applications where you want a lot of out of focus around a the item in focus, it works just great. Photos are beautiful in an artful way. . It is what other lenses are not. It is impressionistic. I have the Olympus f1.4 too. Actually, I have a lot of lenses as you can see here below. The Canon FL 55mm f1.2 is really cool as long as you are photographing something that is no further than your elbow. The Canon FL needs an converter or a Sony mirror-less. I am only using a Canon 2000D. I don't like modern lenses. They are expensive and take a lot of post processing. I like all of these lenses, but for their individual sweet spots. I want these photos to differentiate themselves from common snapshots. I think that sentence is English if not logical. Canon FL 55mm f1.2 Fluorite Lens elements 1968 (1.05822 lbs) Olympus OM-System G.Zuiko Auto-S 55mm f1.2 1974 Radioactive 3389 CPM Auto Chinon MultiCoated 55mm f1.4 (TOMIOKA) Auto Mamiya Sekor 55mm f1.4 with M42 Mount TOMIOKA Design Radioactive 460 CPM Tomioka Auto Revuenon 55mm f1.4 M42 (TOMIOKA) Olympus OM-System Zuiko MC Auto-S 50mm f1.4 Black Nose Radioactive 460 CPM (Great Color Rendering) Asahi Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 Radioactive 2250 CPM SN 3237402 Russian ZENITAR-M 50mm f1.7 FUJINON 55mm f1.8 Asahi Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 55mm f1.8 Radioactive 750 CPM Asahi Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 35mm f2 Radioactive 1850 CPM Russian Jupiter 9 85mm f2 (1976 version) M42 Black with Blue Lens Coating Russian Jupiter 9 85mm f2 (1966 version) M39 Silver with Lilac Lens Coating (Best) Russian Helios 44-2 58mm f2 M42 Russian HELIOS 81H 81N 50mm f2 Nikon Kiev Mount FUJINON 55mm f2.2 Takumar Super-Multi-Coated 135mm f2.5 Olympus OM-System H.Zuiko Auto-W 24mm f2.8 MF FUJINON EBC SW 28mm f3.5 Asahi Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 28mm f3.5 Takumar Super-Multi-Coated 135mm f3.5 Asahi Super Multi Coated Takumar 24mm f3.5 Pentax Super Multi Coated SMC Takumar 300mm F/4 Lens Screw Mount

[@jmoss99]

Your lens body is red or pink. I wonder why that is. Mine is black. I am in California and got the lens from Japan. Red... that is weird. It must mean something. Also, I am not using this as a video lens. I am using it for product photos. It would be complicated to use this for anything other than photos... I think.

[@jmoss99]

I think what you are demo is not what I think is the best use for this lens... unless you stop it down. Try controlling your lighting more or use somewhere that you can control your lighting. You are missing out on the very cool part of this lens by testing it with this concept. To use this lens you need to really think out the shot. Plan it. The shoot it. Like in any situation the compositon is extremely important. Your demo looks like you just pulled the camera out of your bag and started shooting across a parking lot. The video concept is flawed for any lens, let alone an f1.2 lens. You have snow which is totally white, and around it dark objects. This is hard on a CCD system if it is interlaced. Where this lens shines is on an object that is maybe 6 feet away with a background that is 10 to 16 feet away or so. That is enough for that wonderful blur behind your object. At 4 to 6 feet you will have a in-focus area of maybe 0.3 inches. So you get sparkle and blur on your object depending on the lighting. The tonal ratio across the image is always important for a good shot. If you figure out a way to post a photo or two here, I have perfect examples of this and will post them. I am using this for product photos.

[@DavidHancock]

@@jmoss99 the lens is red because I bought one without the rubber grip and applied my own red leather covering. What it means is that when the rubber grip breaks and is lost something has to replace that grip.