OM Zuiko lens conundrum

M-88 · Feb 23, 2020

Bill Burk said:
I have no complaints about other Zuiko lenses. I said before the 40 f/2 is worth it (but so are the 50 normal 1.4, 2.8 and 2 macro ... haven’t tried the 1.2) And the 24 f/2 is good but is not an everyday lens.

Lately I have been using my old favorite (on either Spotmatic F or ES-II) Pentax Super Takumar 35mm f/2 with 67mm filter. (Not the SMCT with 49mm filter). I got a beat up scratched one for about a hundred dollars, and it’s as good as I remember. Awkward to use because of the metering games that Pentax makes you play, cannot use auto on ES-II unless stopped down - and then you can’t see to focus. I will even take it on shorter backpack trips.

I use the normal 50 on OM, hesitate to take the 40 backpacking with scouts or family vacations though because I don’t want to mess it up if I hit foul weather or risk it getting stolen. I would bring it on a serious photo backpacking trip if I am not bringing 4x5 though. (Or maybe from this discussion) I should just live and enjoy it.

Understandable, I'm also babysitting even such regular lenses as 50 mm f/1.8 and 100 mm f/2.8, so I bet you love your gear as well.
M42 Super Takumars are among those lenses which "draw" pictures instead of "rendering" them, if it makes sense. I would gladly go to M42, but this is where I'm coming from in the first place and it feels like a downgrade to me now...

baachitraka said:
28 f/3.5 is a gem but slow but very good performer indeed.

35 f/2.8 is no bad either.

It was a crime to use 28 mm f/3.5 on large and usually bright viewfinder of OM-2. But those days are gone now either way. I decided to bite the bullet and get 35 mm f/2.8. After all, I can always sell it later, if I dislike it.

Nodda Duma · Feb 23, 2020

I’ve owned an OM-1 for 20+ years, and love the system for the same qualities you do.. especially the warmth of the colors.

In wide format, the 28mm f/3.5 is a great lens and keeps those same warm color characteristics. I have mine sitting right here ready for when I need it, along with my 50/1.8 (I like this over my 50/1.4) and the telephotos.

Rather telling, I have no idea where my 35mm f/2.8 is. Never fell in love with it.

I’d suggest weighing your pros and cons and picking up a nice 28 f/3.5

I would share example photos but they’re buried in photo albums and not digitized. Scanning the results would make them look like anything else anyways, and I’m assuming you’re good with “you’ll get the look that you want with the 28 f/3.5 but not the 35/2.8”.

M-88 · Feb 23, 2020

Nodda Duma said:
Rather telling, I have no idea where my 35mm f/2.8 is. Never fell in love with it.

If you manage to find it, make sure to toss it to me

I'm guessing that you disliked both - focal length and colour rendition?

chriscrawfordphoto · Feb 23, 2020

M-88 said:
And I trust you have first hand experience with them? How do they perform compared to other Zuikos?

I've used the OM system since I was 8 years old. I'm 44 now, and have been a fulltime professional artist for 25 years. The OM system has produced some of my best selling photographs.

I own both 35mm lenses and many other OM lenses. The 35mm lenses just plain not as sharp as the rest. The 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.4, 85mm f2, and 100mm f2.8 are all world-class lenses.

M-88 · Feb 23, 2020

chriscrawfordphoto said:
I've used the OM system since I was 8 years old. I'm 44 now, and have been a fulltime professional artist for 25 years. The OM system has produced some of my best selling photographs.

I own both 35mm lenses and many other OM lenses. The 35mm lenses just plain not as sharp as the rest. The 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.4, 85mm f2, and 100mm f2.8 are all world-class lenses.

Sounds like a half-hearted effort from manufacturers...

Nodda Duma · Feb 23, 2020

M-88 said:
If you manage to find it, make sure to toss it to me

I'm guessing that you disliked both - focal length and colour rendition?

no I liked the 28mm, but over the past several years I’ve slanted towards portrait / normal focal lengths, so the 28 doesn’t get as much use

Smaug01 · Feb 24, 2020

No experience with the 35/2.8. I looked into getting one for the reasons you describe, but they are pretty dear, relative to a 28/3.5. (which I have already) What I wound up doing instead was to buy a second inexpensive body. I keep the 28/3.5 on one body (OM1N) and either the 50/1.8 or 135/3.5 on the other. (OM10; I got this for $15 at thrift) It also added aperture priority auto exposure.

The 28/3.5 is very sharp and well-corrected for barrel distortion. Mine has the older coating, but I also have the hood for it, so no flare concerns. It's marginal for indoor wide angles, on account of being slow. On the other hand, its wide open performance is better than that of a 28/2.8 or 28/2. These are very cheap on the used market.

I've found that 35 mm is usually wide enough, unless you're in a city, in which case 24 or 28 is much better. 50 is a good family people picture lens (for one or two people at a time) 100 is good for people out in public; they don't feel threatened as much as the lens still appears pretty short but gets you a lot closer than a 50.

Side note: I wound up buying a 35/2 for my Nikon system. I rarely use the 50 any more. I bought it again for my µ4/3 and that is an expensive lens; almost $300. So I didn't want to spend another $100 on an OM mount 35 mm lens.

Bill Burk · Feb 24, 2020

chriscrawfordphoto said:
I've used the OM system since I was 8 years old. I'm 44 now, and have been a fulltime professional artist for 25 years. The OM system has produced some of my best selling photographs.

I own both 35mm lenses and many other OM lenses. The 35mm lenses just plain not as sharp as the rest. The 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.4, 85mm f2, and 100mm f2.8 are all world-class lenses.

How about the 35mm shift? I have long been tempted to try it for it should have the properties I want

baachitraka · Feb 24, 2020

M-88 said:
Understandable, I'm also babysitting even such regular lenses as 50 mm f/1.8 and 100 mm f/2.8, so I bet you love your gear as well.
M42 Super Takumars are among those lenses which "draw" pictures instead of "rendering" them, if it makes sense. I would gladly go to M42, but this is where I'm coming from in the first place and it feels like a downgrade to me now...

It was a crime to use 28 mm f/3.5 on large and usually bright viewfinder of OM-2. But those days are gone now either way. I decided to bite the bullet and get 35 mm f/2.8. After all, I can always sell it later, if I dislike it.

I was traveling a bit in Italy some years ago. 28mm f/3.5 has stayed all the time. 35mm was bit narrow for cityscapes (esp., Venice, Florence and Rome) so I have used 35mm only two exposures...but it's good from f/8.0 - f/16

All through the day it was bright and sunny and 28mm f/3.5 is good performer across all aperture stops. So I did not worry much about which aperture to choose.

OM-1n + 28mm f/3.5 + APX 100 (original) was kind of nice combo and some of the prints are still hanging in the kitchen.

*Only 18 rolls I took to the trip. But I bet x10 is not enough to cover Venice. Every corner is an opportunity to make good photos.

M-88 · Feb 25, 2020

I think pretty much any "legacy" lens that is not made by third-party manufacturer should hold its ground pretty well around f/8-f/11 in terms of contrast and sharpness.

chriscrawfordphoto · Feb 25, 2020

Bill Burk said:
How about the 35mm shift? I have long been tempted to try it for it should have the properties I want

I've never used one. Its a lens that really must be used on a tripod, as it has a non-automatic aperture and the whole point of shift lens is precsise framing without geometric distortion. If I have to use a tripod, I use a medium format camera, not a 35mm. Because of that, and the fact that the lens has always been really expensive for something I would not use much, I never bought one.

Smaug01 · Feb 25, 2020

chriscrawfordphoto said:
I've never used one. Its a lens that really must be used on a tripod, as it has a non-automatic aperture and the whole point of shift lens is precsise framing without geometric distortion. If I have to use a tripod, I use a medium format camera, not a 35mm. Because of that, and the fact that the lens has always been really expensive for something I would not use much, I never bought one.

I saw a Zuiko shift lens sell on ebay a few weeks ago for $150. I 'Watched' it to think about it, but when I went back a few hours later, it was gone already. Damn.

Bill Burk · Feb 26, 2020

Smaug01 said:
I saw a Zuiko shift lens sell on ebay a few weeks ago for $150. I 'Watched' it to think about it, but when I went back a few hours later, it was gone already. Damn.

Looks like the 35mm 2.8 shift could be had for around $250 if you are patient.

Non-auto aperture might make it awkward. I kind of have that struggle with the Super Takumar that I have to shoot stopped down for metering/auto shutter. So it wouldn’t be much worse.

Smaug01 · Feb 26, 2020

Bill Burk said:
Looks like the 35mm 2.8 shift could be had for around $250 if you are patient.

Non-auto aperture might make it awkward. I kind of have that struggle with the Super Takumar that I have to shoot stopped down for metering/auto shutter. So it wouldn’t be much worse.

Ah, buildings don't move fast though, so there's time. ;-)

John51 · Feb 28, 2020

I have a Zuiko 28/2.8.

When I pan the camera, what was in the middle of the vf stretches as it becomes one side of the scene.

What's that type of distortion called? Is it common?

M-88 · Feb 28, 2020

John51 said:
I have a Zuiko 28/2.8.

When I pan the camera, what was in the middle of the vf stretches as it becomes one side of the scene.

What's that type of distortion called? Is it common?

All wide angle lenses have perspective distortion due to the fact that they "compress" the scene and squeeze it into their field of view. It's only natural.

grain elevator · Feb 28, 2020

John51 said:
I have a Zuiko 28/2.8.

When I pan the camera, what was in the middle of the vf stretches as it becomes one side of the scene.

What's that type of distortion called? Is it common?

Don't know if there's a name for it in photography beyond that it's a type of perspective "distortion". It's what rectilinear lenses are supposed to do. A pinhole does it too. It's the result of projecting a three-dimensional world onto a flat plane. Think of it like this: When your standing in front of, say, a wide window, the left and right verticals of the frame are smaller in your field of view than the height of the window right in front of you, because they are further away from you. Your brain "corrects" this so that you usually aren't aware of it; our vision isn't like a camera, more like a spatial model in our mind. A rectilinear lens also "corrects" this, by enlarging the left and right vertical frames of the window, so they appear the same height as the window right in front of you, even though they are further away. Enlarging means stretching, right? That's what you observe.
What doesn't do it is a fisheye, or a swing lens panoramic camera. These bend straight lines... no free lunch.

M-88 · Mar 16, 2020

The lens has finally arrived and I put a test roll through the camera. First impression is that it performs adequately and focusing is faster compared to 50 mm f/1.8 lens. Colour representation is similar to what I am used to. Of course I will surely need a more thorough testing, but now is not the time.

OM Zuiko lens conundrum

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency