Newer 35 f/2 vs. Older 35 mm f/2 Lens WO Images

[kpembo]

I have an older 35mm f/2 Zuiko. It is almost unusable at f/2, but is fantastic at f/2.8 and smaller aperture. 35mm is my favorite focal length, but really doesn't serve me well in lower light since the f/2 images are low quality. I noticed the same pattern with an older 50 f/1.4. However, the newer 50mm f/1.4 was very usable wide open. Are the newer 35mm f/2 lenses more usable at f/2?

 

[mopar_guy]

I have the 35mm f2 Zuiko first version with the Silver Nose (SN 1063xx) and also a 35mm f2 Zuiko 2nd version (SN 1293xx). There was at least one later version from about 1982 that was marked "MADE IN JAPAN" that I do not own. I see very little difference between them. Both are Multi-Coated. The 35mm focal length is not one that I use often. I always use a lens hood.

Dave

 

[darinwc]

I have a late-model 35mm f2 Zuiko and it is soft wide-open, with quite a bit of CA. Quite nice for portraits actually. But stopped down 1-2 stops it is quite sharp and the Ca disappears.

 

[darinwc]

I checked MIR and the service manual. Neither mention a change in the lens composition, though there were minor changes in the nameplate and aperture assembly. MIR also mentions a shorter lens barrel for the earliest versions, but i cannot confirm that.

 

[M6F6E6]

Why do u say 'almost unusable' at f2? Flare or distortion? Most Zuikos are best up one stop from widest, unlike high quality stuff like Leica. Bit like the redline indicator on a Holden or Falcon - u don't wanna use it that severe unless you have to.