XA Lens Quality?

XA Lens Quality?

  • it's always sharp!

    Votes: 96 30.8%

  • by f4

    Votes: 47 15.1%

  • by f5.6

    Votes: 93 29.8%

  • by f8

    Votes: 41 13.1%

  • by f11

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • it never really gets that sharp

    Votes: 35 11.2%
  • Total voters
    312
I've found it's always decently sharp... Only thing is I can never keep one working for more than about 5 rolls. I've gone through 3 and each one has stuffed up prematurely. I want so badly to have a decent working one because I really like them.
 
Wasn't it Bailey who said in the famous tv ad (the George Cole / Arthur Daley one) "It's a Zuiko lens, so of course it's good."
 
Last edited:
(OT mode on) I never heard a definition of "sharp"! This reminds me of the question whether photography is art or not. (OT mode off) The question for me is, whether I´m satisfied with the overall quality of a lens and for the XA-lens my answer is yes, at all apertures and in BW and color.
 
Sharpness isn't something that I obsess over but the thing that turned me against my XA and XA4 was terrible lens flare. I can deal with the soft corners but the lens flare and especially when you get the full on hexagonal flare (I could live with it if it was at least round) ruined too many shots for me. I never get this with other cameras and I very rarely use a lens hood.
 
That's funny, i haven't had much flare with the xa - no worse than other cameras. And the shot you posted looks to me like a classic flare inducing shot (sun hitting the front element directly). I doubt many compacts would hold up much better in such a situation.
 
A good XA has more than 60 l/mm (f4 and up).

195931648_RekMk-L.jpg


Gives original highlights though, with the square aperture.

Roland.
 
But on the Zuiko lenses, didn't Bailey say "I use it when I am not taking pictures"!!!
Didn't he do ads for the Trip, the XA and the OM10 only. Were there other models?

Lichfield also had a go, didn't he?

I am getting old.
 
I'm the original owner of my XA. For about 10 years, it was my only camera. I've always found the lens to be a good performer. Here are some recent shots:

Stopped down, about f.11:

2582599458_cf03bb7a2c.jpg


About f.4 (slight crop):

2338686947_cafe8d4975.jpg


Wide open (slight crop):

2582599158_de674fecc4.jpg
 
The XA is not meant to be used wide open all the time.
I use it at 5.6-11 most of the time.
If needed, I get nice looking images back at 2.8.
 
raid said:
The XA is not meant to be used wide open all the time.
I use it at 5.6-11 most of the time.
If needed, I get nice looking images back at 2.8.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think there's a reason f/5.6 is highlighted in orange... as if Olympus is trying to encourage people to use it when they can.
 
The reason f/5.6 is highlighted in orange is to use the zone focusing mark at 8 feet for snap shots.;)
 
yeah, but I also treated it as go beneath me with caution...

the reason I posted this was to get a gauge on how others (other than those posting fan sites for the camera etc.) found the sharpness of this lens since more often than I like the camera returned images that I thought were distractingly soft (and I don't think of myself as a "sharpness freak" by any stretch of the imagination since I shoot mainly cheap old stuff).

For a long time I've wondered if I got one of those "soft copies" or if others just don't mind the softness... anyway, thanks all, I'm shooting the camera currently and I'll see what the newest results come back like... have owned the camera since new and was always on the fence with it... but love love love the size and design.
 
I find that holding the little camera steady is harder than a full sized camera. This could be one of the reasons why wide open images can appear rather soft with the XA. Test it wide open on a tripod.
 
Solinar said:
The reason f/5.6 is highlighted in orange is to use the zone focusing mark at 8 feet for snap shots.;)
Click to expand...

Interesting. So, what zone is in focus when you set the focus tab to 8 ft (it's 3 metres on my version) and the aperture to f/5.6? Is it 8ft to infinity? I usually like to get closer than 8 ft, so I'm not sure how useful that would be for me.

Is there a pdf manual for this camera out there? Guess I should google it...
 
My guess is that the subject need to be standing 6 to 12 feet from the camera to be in acceptable focus for a snap shot sized print when the lens is set to the highlighted 8 foot mark.

3 meters is 10 feet - so your mileage may very.

Raid gets the 64,000 dollar prize - camera shake can be a bugger with the XA - especially when it wanders into the slow shutter speed zone.
 
I used a small tripod all the time so that isn't the problem... also, my Minox GL shots are way way sharper and the Minox holds much more awkwardly than the XA.

Yeah, there is a pdf manual somewhere and it has DOF table... but at 8' and f5.6 DOF is ~6.25-11" ... which is why I never shoot in that mode... I can guess better than that (hence I shoot the Minox more often... plus the Minox takes an actual bounce flash for when I need flash).

well... as I said, I love the design of the XA and am trying to be conscience of the lack of sharpness and shoot subjects that don't rely on a super sharp less...
 
From a sharpness standpoint, my XA lens has performed every bit as well as my Minox GL and Rollei 35 (tessar models). And the option of the rangefinder - rather than just zone focus, is nice for when I don't feel like guessing...

Perhaps yours is in need of adjustment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top