Zuiko Vs Zuiko Part II (the 50mm)

How do they compare to each other?

Over the last couple of months, my zuiko family has grown. Got a cheap 28f2.8 for Christmas and within a few weeks I found a "Made in Japan" 50f/1.8 for £1.99 and a MC 50f/1.4 for £49.99 in different charity shops.

The MIJ 50f/1.8 was sold as spares as it was full of fungus - to my surprise when I took it apart the fungus was limited on the outer part of the inner side of the group (the side facing the aperture blades) and cleaned very nicely using white vinegar and then a bit of window cleaner.  There is a tiny spot that is inside the cemented group - I assume it is fungus, but it is very small and faint, limited at the edge of the cemented group - too small to have an impact. The lens spent a couple of days under the UV lamp to kill any remaining fungus spores.

The Multicoated 50f/1.4 was another repair story. No trace of fungus when I got it, everything looked clean and bright, but when I shone some light I noticed this fogging.
 

Assuming it is dry condensation spots, I took the lens apart to clean it. This version of the lens is a real pain to take apart, Olympus engineers have used a lot of contact cement on the retaining rings. The outer ring with the Olympus inscription unscrew easily, the front three elements come out together with lens pliers. These 3 elements are held together by 2 retaining rings, these are a pain to unscrew. Anyway I managed to unscrew them and found out that the blemish on the lens was on the third element. On closer inspection under a magnifying loupe, it looked like a million tiny bubbles on the surface of the glass. Ronsonol took some of the fogginess away, I also tried white vinegar and window cleaner to remove any cleaning streaks.

I am not sure what has caused it, it is not fully gone but it is not as prominent under direct light as it used to be. I decided against any further cleaning as any risk of damage outweighs any potential benefits. 

 

 Comparing the lenses

With plenty of free time I thought I could mount the lenses on my Canon 10d and just take a few pictures to see how they compare. Not terribly scientific as a test but it has always given me an indication as to how well a lens performs. Here is a picture of the setup

I also thought to include my good old trusty Canon EF 50f/1.8. I have been using this lens for decades and it provides a short of standard for me. It is a modern lens which is famous for its performance.
So, here it is:

Centre of the frame

Corner of the frame

So, the Multicoated and the silvernose are very similar at the centre when shot at f/1.4 although the multicoated seems to be better corrected regarding the aberrations. The edges are different thought, the Multicoated 50f/1.4 is ahead of the silvernose in terms of sharpness and aberrations.

At f/2 or f/1.8, both the 50f/1.4 have made a jump in quality and are ahead of both the MIJ and the Canon. The improvement of the Multicoated is more obvious - the corners are very good. The Multicoated is very usuable lens at f/2.

At f/2.8 all lenses have sharpened nicely in the centre (the MIJ is somehow still behind in terms of aberrations) and the modern canon is catching up with the Multicoated. Edges are not looking too great for the MIJ and the Silvernose although both improved.

At f/4 all lenses perform great in the centre. Edges are very good too.

 

Bokeh
There are some differences with bokeh. The MC 50f/1.4 produces less harsh out of focus highlights compared to the silvernose 50f/1.4. The MIJ 50/1.8 is somewhere in between.

Flare
Flare control is not great by any of these lenses. The silvernose was more prone to flare than the other two. Ok, I am shooting with the sun directly hitting the front element but I expected them to do a bit better. Don't leave the lens hood at home with the silvernose 50f/1.4.

In real life conditions, all lenses work great.  In good light there is very little difference between them and in low light some difference is there but is up to you to decide if it is enough to make you upgrade to another version of the lens. Personally I don't think so, I would be very happy with any of them. I like the character of the silvernose 50f/1.4 more, with b&w film it feels less clinical and sharp than a modern lens - it has a certain charm for me.

The MC 50f/1.4 is a slightly bigger lens than the original silvernose. This reflects some internal changes in the design of the lens too. The MIJ 50f/1.8 is a tiny lens, just slightly bigger than a pancake lens. Unfortunately, the last "Made in Japan" version, whilst sharper than the previous single coated version, very often suffers from irreparable damage from fungus that develops inside the cemented elements. You have more chances to find a good copy of the old single coated version ofthe lens as it contained no cemeneted elements on the front group and it is easier to clean them (they do contain a cemented group on the rear thought).

From left to right:
MC50f/1.4 - Silvernose 50f/1.4 -MIJ 50f/1.8

Conclusion.

The overall conclusion is that all lenses are great. There is a reason why the MIJ 50f/1.8 is so popular - they are cheap, plentiful and performance will leave you satisfied. No need to look elsewhere if you don't have the extra cash.

With the Multicoated 50f/1.4, Olympus improved an already very good lens. Contrast is better, aberrations are better corrected when shooting wide open and bokeh seems less distracting. It is slightly bigger and heavier though and more expensive. If you find a cheap one like I did,  this is the lens to go for.

But my personal favourite is the good old silvernose 50f/1.4. It is smaller and lighter than the MC 50f/1.4 and has a very nice,  old fashioned character when shooting film wide open. With digital it is not performing that well - that is true - but on film it (literally) glows. My favourite.