Y Maitani designed the OM cameras to be the Leica M SLR. The first was the M1.Thanks for the feedback and comments. The reason I decided to put the OM2n to the test was that, as a Leica RF owner (M7, MP & IIIg) I was considering completing the set, so to speak by getting a Leica SLR - something like an R5 but decided initially to press the OM2n into service to renew my acquaintance with SLR's. Have to say that the results from the OM2n have knocked that idea on the head and I will now look for other Zuiko lenses to accompany the 50mm f1.8. Either a 28mm or 35mm next, methinks!
Thanks for the feedback and comments. The reason I decided to put the OM2n to the test was that, as a Leica RF owner (M7, MP & IIIg) I was considering completing the set, so to speak by getting a Leica SLR - something like an R5 but decided initially to press the OM2n into service to renew my acquaintance with SLR's. Have to say that the results from the OM2n have knocked that idea on the head and I will now look for other Zuiko lenses to accompany the 50mm f1.8. Either a 28mm or 35mm next, methinks!
I am a Leica RF fan (M2/M3) but also own an OM2n with three Zuiko lenses. I see no reason to even consider any other 35mm SLR including Leica SLRs.....Regards!
Possibly I'm picking up this question too late to be of use to you, but last month I asked a similar question and was pointed mainly in the direction of the 35-70 F/3.6. However I took a risk on a bargain 35-70 F3.5-4.5 which I found going too cheap to ignore on eBay Germany. I'm still in the process of pushing a test roll through it, but through the viewfinder it certainly looks sharp enough particularly stopped down a little. The only one I would avoid is the S Zuiko Zoom 35-70mm/F3.5-4.8 built by Cosina for the OM-2000, also built by them. It was always a cheap budget lens, and while I have no personal experience with it, negative or otherwise, there doesn't seem any point in buying it when 'genuine' Olympus zooms can be had so cheaply.Thanks one & all.
Which lenses do you have? I was considering one of the 35-70mm zooms as a general travel/walk about lens but there some negative reports about the performance.
through the viewfinder it certainly looks sharp enough particularly stopped down a little.
Not much of an indicator I know, but until I see the results on film it's the best indication I've got!It's a good one!
Quite some time ago a new neighbour, seeing me with a 35mm Leica slung over my shoulder said "ah, into old cameras are you - well I was going to throw out a bag of old stuff - perhaps you could use some of it." Inside a tatty old bag was a pristine OM2n & Auto-S 50mm f1.8, which I gladly added to my collectionAnyway, it was just a couple of days ago that I finally decided to put them to the test and fired of a roll of Acros 100 on a range of subjects, including close-ups at max aperture. Quite pleased with the results and some can be seen on this album on my Flickr site. Looks like a combination of body & lens that I'll use again.
Possibly I'm picking up this question too late to be of use to you, but last month I asked a similar question and was pointed mainly in the direction of the 35-70 F/3.6. However I took a risk on a bargain 35-70 F3.5-4.5 which I found going too cheap to ignore on eBay Germany. I'm still in the process of pushing a test roll through it, but through the viewfinder it certainly looks sharp enough particularly stopped down a little. The only one I would avoid is the S Zuiko Zoom 35-70mm/F3.5-4.8 built by Cosina for the OM-2000, also built by them. It was always a cheap budget lens, and while I have no personal experience with it, negative or otherwise, there doesn't seem any point in buying it when 'genuine' Olympus zooms can be had so cheaply.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?