Dumb wide angle questions from a born again OM user

Hopefully I’ve done enough searching through the old threads to avoid asking the same questions over and over again, but here goes.

I’ve just picked up an OM-2 outfit with the Zuiko 28 - f3.5 wide angle, and the opinion round here suggests that it is a good lens, but I have a hankering for something that little bit wider as I love that element of controlled distortion. Therefore, to me, the obvious choice is the Zuiko 24 - f2.8, but for a few dollars more there’s also the f2.0

So to the question: Can someone please explain to me what advantages the f2.0 has over the f2.8 in the real world?

The way that I had always thought of wide angle lenses is that they give a greater depth of field compared with standard or telephoto lenses, but the other side of that coin is that it’s more difficult to control the DoF to give a subject more emphasis.

However, as you open any lens up, the DoF reduces, but is the difference between a 24 - f2.8 and an f2.0 significant and usable, or is this a really dumb question ‘cos I’ve missed the point completely and faster glass is always better?

I suppose the ideal would be if someone could point me at an image from a fast, wide lens that a slower glass just couldn’t achieve.

Also, is my obvious choice a reasonable one, or are there any other contenders?

Thanks in advance for humouring me,

John

If you work in low light levels an f2 lens is that one stop faster than the f2.8, it is a significant difference.

For instance I shoot Rock concerts usually with lenses wide open and the differance between f2.5 and f3.5 /or f2.8 and f3.5, which are the two main lesnses I use makes it far easier working hand held being able to use a slightly faster shutter speed, and a high proportion of sharp images.

However an f2 28mm is more specialised and when new the price difference would have been much more significant. The number of times most people use a lens at full aperture is very small.

Welcome to APUG

Ian

I was running an OM system when those lenses were coming out. The real difference, apart from the obvious stop difference, is their construction.

IIRC the f2 had more elements, took a bigger filter (bigger than my 52mm Nikkor lenses) but the real big difference that I certainly know about, was that the faster one had floating elements.

The price difference between them was huge, I only ever saw one f2 version in a showroom.

If the floating elements arrangement is anything like some of my Nikkors that have this, then they are a far better lens for close range stuff than a normal non floating element lens.

Good secondhand stuff in WA is relatively hard to come by, especially stuff that hasn't been through a dust storm, voice of experience here.

I read your other post, I had a similar adjustment in 1974, only I left Kalgoorlie/Norseman for Melbourne, to live with a Swedish lovely.

Welcome to Apug, I ride an R1100GS, what are you on?

Mick.

Cheers Guys that was quick,

Ian ... yup, I understand what you say about low light hand held shots, but at this stage I'm prepared to work within the limits of the gear bag for low light.

The way I feel at the moment if I'm shooting low light stuff with a 24 I'll have the camera on a tripod. Either that, or really start pushing some B&W. [Note to self ... time to start messing about with B&W again]

Mick ... Ah, a man after my own heart. I've got an 1150 GS and an 80 GS parked up back in NZ, and with the daft money that airhead GS's are fetching an 1100 GS was top of my shopping list for wheels in Perth ... what I actually ended up with in the short term was a beaten up R65 that was in need of some serious tlc, but I digress ...

I've just checked the specs on the f2, and you're right it does have a floating element, and your also right that these were big buck lenses at the time. I suppose it's a case of getting what you pay for.

When it comes to getting hold of extra bits for the gear bag I don't expect there to be too much OM gear floating about WA, and I've had a couple of decidedly "average" experiences with fleabay so I was going to go straight to KEH ... or similar.

In light of the two previous replies I suppose I should re-phrase the question to ask if there are any particular effects that you can achieve with a fast, wide lens compared with a slower version?

Any other opinions out there ...

Camera marketing departments everywhere love folks like you, JGC. First and foremost, "faster glass" IS NOT "always better". As lenses get faster, design trade-offs have to be made. So often a faster lens is not as good as a slower version when they are both at the same aperture. The Zuiko 50mm f1.2 is generally regarded as having poorer image quality than the f1.8. The 24mm f2 takes 55mm filters and weighs 280g, compared to 49mm and 180g for the f2.8. So size wise there is a definate advantage to the slower lens.

The real question to ask yourself is why do you think you need the extra stop? Is it because you do a lot of low light shooting, or do you want the limited DoF? It it's the limited DoF, then you shouldn't be using a 24mm unless you want to isolate an object 2 ft from the lens. One of the main advantages of a wide lens is the expanded DoF. One extra stop is not going to gain you much for low light, especially for a lens you can hand hold down to 1/15s.

JGC:

My Zuiko 24mm f/2.8 is sharp, has good contrast, and is tiny!

It also uses 49mm filters.

The only reason to consider the f/2 is (IMHO) the brighter image on the viewing screen.

Matt

thuggins said:

The real question to ask yourself is why do you think you need the extra stop? Is it because you do a lot of low light shooting, or do you want the limited DoF? It it's the limited DoF, then you shouldn't be using a 24mm unless you want to isolate an object 2 ft from the lens. One of the main advantages of a wide lens is the expanded DoF. One extra stop is not going to gain you much for low light, especially for a lens you can hand hold down to 1/15s.

Click to expand...

Isn't the point of fast lenses with bigger front elements to impress women? Alas, I don't have any lenses like that, which explains my love life.

The f2.8 version is sharper. Incredibly sharp, and it beats my AF-Nikkor 24/2.8 as well. I shoot OM for film, Nikon for digital so I have the Olympus and Nikon versions of some of the same lenses 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/2. I prefer the olympus version on all of them except the 85s. The AF-Nikkor 85/1.8 is sharper than my Zuiko 85/2 and both have good Bokeh.

thuggins said:

Camera marketing departments everywhere love folks like you, JGC ...

Click to expand...

That's a bit harsh Tim ... we haven't even met

Seriously, though I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head.

thuggins said:

The real question to ask yourself is why do you think you need the extra stop? Is it because you do a lot of low light shooting, or do you want the limited DoF? It it's the limited DoF, then you shouldn't be using a 24mm unless you want to isolate an object 2 ft from the lens. One of the main advantages of a wide lens is the expanded DoF. One extra stop is not going to gain you much for low light, especially for a lens you can hand hold down to 1/15s.

Click to expand...

Do I NEED the extra stop? No, but like Everest, it's there.

Low light ... as I've already said, I'm prepared to work within the limitations of the gear bag.

DoF ... I've lived without the ability to isolate an object in a wide angle frame so far, and to a lesser extent the distortion of the lens can be used to give emphasis IMO.

Chazzy, I’ve never had any difficulty impressing women in the short term, my problems seem to arise once they start to see through the veneer ... typically somewhere between 2 seconds and 2 years

Cheers all for clarifying the real question(s) for me, and the answer is … get the 24-f2.8, and save the extra to go towards a fast, short telephoto where I can see a real usable advantage in limiting DoF.

Thanks all

John

JGC said:

and the answer is … get the 24-f2.8, and save the extra to go towards a fast, short telephoto where I can see a real usable advantage in limiting DoF.

Thanks all

John

Click to expand...

John:

My favourite kit is 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/2.

The 35mm f/2 is essentially my "standard" lens.

These lenses, a body, some film, a T20 flash and a very small bag and I'm ready to go .

For your consideration.

Matt

MattKing said:

... For your consideration

Click to expand...

Thanks Matt,

If I can find a "sensible head" to put on, what I really need to do is get some film through the camera(s) to get my eye back in, and also to find out which areas I'm having most fun with.

I know I enjoy the super wide stuff based on the use I've had from my EF 22-55mm on the EOS ... yes, I know it's not a great lens by any stretch of the imagination, and it suffers from the most appalling vignetting, but I still love the distortion that seems to emphasise the "nothingness" of some of the landscapes I was trying to capture (in my own humble way of course).

Getting back to the OM gear, I think I've got the bases covered with wide, standard and telephoto, however, I feel the need to have a super wide lens in the bag. Hence the question about the 24mm lens.

I've not played with short telephoto stuff yet, but the only reason for that is the short telephoto images that I've liked have obviously been taken with fast glass and until now I've never had the opportunity to get my own really fast lens.

Once I get some film run off, and I get the 24mm I'll start looking for something to fit between the 50mm and the 200mm. Will it be 85 / 100 / 135?

Who knows, but will be a quick lens, and I am sincerely hoping to have some fun with the camera between now and whenever I make the decision.

Is there space in the bag for a 35mm lens ... of course, and who knows what other windfalls I may come across in my travels, but I do like your less is more philosophy with the gear bag. After all it's not what you've got, it's what you can do with it.

Once again, thanks to everyone for the advice so far.

If you're looking for something wider than 28mm then a 24mm may not fit the bill - you may require the extra angle of the Zuiko 21mm. The f3.5 is superbly sharp and tiny (same 49mm thread as the 24mm f2.8) while the somewhat elusive f2 version is much bigger but optically stunning.

Comments on the f2.8 version of the 24mm being a better performer mirror what I've heard from those who have tried both.

For the short telephoto I'd recommend 100mm. As with the wideangles, 85mm just isn't quite enough longer than 50mm to make it worth the effort. It works perfectly for a 35/85 combo but a bit of a waste when the standard lens is already in use.

Simon,

Thanks for the suggestions. As I said earlier I think the most important thing is to focus (sic) on getting some film through the camera and find out what I'm enjoying.

The next thing on the agenda is to concentrate on composition rather than slipping into GAS meltdown and thinking "if I only had a ... [insert random lens spec here]".

On the other hand it is extremely difficult to resist the temptation to rush out and fill my gear bag to bursting point. Especially when you consider that the cost of the lenses that I'm looking at are measured in terms of working hours, rather than weeks or even months when I was first afflicted by the OM condition

... and my mantra shall be "less is more, less is more, less is more , ..."

Cheers

John

JGC said:

... and my mantra shall be "less is more, less is more, less is more , ..."

Click to expand...

Keep it up.

And you know what? Less really IS more. While the 'one lens' discipline might be too much for some people I'm all in favour of keeping the kit as small as practical. Don't get a wider/longer/faster lens until you really need one.

Hi JGC,

Of the Zuiko 24mm lenses, I've had both the f/2 and f/2.8 versions, and I think the f/2.8 is sharper and has better contrast. I've kept the f/2.8 and sold the f/2.

If you're thinking of a short tele to go with it, the Zuiko 100/2.8 is superb.

Alan