OM Zuiko lens conundrum

[M-88]

Hello

I've been trying to solve this one for quite some time on my own. However, I need an advise. Right now I have an OM body, a 50 mm f/1.8 lens and a 100 mm f/2.8 lens. Both lenses are stellar to me, contrasty, sharp and have a colour rendition, which, in the absence of better term, can be classified as "nice and warm". I also owned 28 mm f/3.5 and 135 mm f/2.8 in the past and those two were equally good as well.

Right now I'm in the need of a wider lens. If I get 28 mm f/3.5, I'll have to juggle between three lenses and from what I remember, it's not that quick and not that much fun. So I've been thinking to get a 35 mm f/2.8 lens, which is compact and would cover something in between 28 and 50 mm, so I'd try to get by with 35 mm and 100 mm lenses. But some people say it's "not sharp enough", others say it has "colod colours". And then there are some who say that f/2.8 is too slow, but this point is negligible. I simply can't find a side-by-side comparison of pictures, to come to conclusion by myself.

What I want to ask is: can anyone share their first-hand experience about Zuiko 35 mm f/2.8? Is it good, or should I get back to juggling three lenses again?

I'm thankful for any input!

P.S. The use of 35 mm as main focal length won't be difficult for me, since I have some experience with that length and we get along well, so we can rule out the factor of "what if 35 mm is not wide enough / standard enough".

 

[Arvee]

Having both the 28/2.8 and the 35/2.8 I jockeyed back and forth for a couple of years before I could settle; I finally landed on the 35. Both lenses are of superb quality but I chose the 35 because it has the perspective I much prefer.

 

[M-88]

Having both the 28/2.8 and the 35/2.8 I jockeyed back and forth for a couple of years before I could settle; I finally landed on the 35. Both lenses are of superb quality but I chose the 35 because it has the perspective I much prefer.

waht about color rendition? Is it same as, let's say 28, or 50 mm? Or did the photos look colder? Also, is your 35 mm a silvernose, or later model?

 

[Arvee]

Both are late models; I can't tell if there is a color shift one way or another between any of the lenses, including the 50s (1.4/1.8).. The different transparency films exhibited far greater color differences than than any bias in the lenses themselves.

 

[M-88]

Thank you. I did compare 50/1.8 SC, 50/1.8 MC, 50/1.4 and 135/2.8 back when I had them all. If 35 mm f/2.8 is anywhere near them, then I can safely buy it. They cost quite a lot compared to my budget, that is why I'm trying to think twice.

 

[Bill Burk]

I often take a pair, 35mm f/2 and 85 f/2

Never really been happy with the 35 but I bought it used and have had it apart (so what I see might not be typical).

I have read good reviews of the 35 f/2.8 because it is lighter weight. As a backpacker that matters to me.

Now if you really want, the 40mm f/2 “is worth it”. It’s just so close to the 50 that you might have trouble justifying it.

 

[M-88]

I often take a pair, 35mm f/2 and 85 f/2

Never really been happy with the 35 but I bought it used and have had it apart (so what I see might not be typical).

I have read good reviews of the 35 f/2.8 because it is lighter weight. As a backpacker that matters to me.

Now if you really want, the 40mm f/2 “is worth it”. It’s just so close to the 50 that you might have trouble justifying it.

Size matters to me, yes. That is why I am OM user. And 100 mm f/2.8 is remarkably compact as well as 50 mm f/1.8 and 28 mm f/2.8 or 3.5.

I got more trouble justifying 40 mm f/2 due to its price point than its focal length.

Why aren't you happy with 35 mm f/2.8?

 

[Bill Burk]

You might look at 24mm f/2.8

That will make it worth carrying 3 lenses.

You’ll never have the right lens on at any one time. Carry with the telephoto mounted for the best chance of bear pictures. But if you’re like me you’ll be enjoying the scenery with the 24 when you stumble across the bear

There’s a 24 silver nose on eBay under a hundred dollars

 

[M-88]

You might look at 24mm f/2.8

That will make it worth caring 3 lenses.

You’ll never have the right lens on at any one time. Carry with the telephoto mounted for the best chance of bear pictures. But if you’re like me you’ll be enjoying the scenery with the 24 when you stumble across the bear

24 mm is just too wide for me. Even 28 mm was often too wide for whatever I usually do.

 

[Bill Burk]

24 mm is just too wide for me. Even 28 mm was often too wide for whatever I usually do.

35 is just so close to normal.

I am plagued with a 24, 35, 40, 3 50’s etc. When I go out it would be the 24 and a 50 like yours that would go with me

 

[Bill Burk]

24 really comes in handy for dramatic landscapes and panoramas, plus it works well for groups

 

[Bill Burk]

But 35 is my favorite focal length. You could do well to pick it. 2.8 would be, in terms of light weight, a better choice than f/2

 

[MattKing]

I prefer a 24mm f/2.8, 35 mm f/2 and 85mm f/2 set, but the 49mm filter size for the 35mm f/2.8 is attractive.

 

[M-88]

But 35 is my favorite focal length. You could do well to pick it. 2.8 would be, in terms of light weight, a better choice than f/2

My wallet will also be grateful if I get f/2.8 instead of f/2

 

[M-88]

I prefer a 24mm f/2.8, 35 mm f/2 and 85mm f/2 set, but the 49mm filter size for the 35mm f/2.8 is attractive.

I bet bright viewfinder while using 35 mm f/2 is attractive as well And boy, are OM viewfinders bright! It's a crime to use 28 mm f/3.5 lens on them.

 

[Bill Burk]

Haa yes the 2.8 would be good for you with the 49mm filter.

My “unhappiness” is with 35mm f/2 - and it stems from a comparison to my favorite 35mm f/2 Super Takumar M42. The Pentax lens was used for some of my favorite pictures. I was jazzed to get the Zuiko, but I always found it not giving me the pictures I expected. It could have been the magic of being in my 20’s and fresh out of school. I thought I was seeing barrel distortion. And the Pentax felt more rectilinear.

 

[ronwhit]

Quite a bit off topic here, but in agreement with Mr. Burk regarding "back-packing" lenses. When I was (much) younger, my kit for
hiking was a Canon A-1, and 35 plus 85 mm lenses (increments of 50 mm), occasionally including a 135 mm. All took a 52 mm CPL and the combo was just right for this.

 

[jgoody]

I have the 28mm 2.8 and a few other OM lenses, haven't hit a bad one yet, and all my lenses are 49mm filter sized. Whatever you end up with I'd stick with the 49mm filter size (which matches your 100mm and 50mm). Simplifies life. Often pack 28mm and 85mm -- great combo -- so 35mm and 100mm is about the same ratio of focal length (3 to 1).

 

[M-88]

Haa yes the 2.8 would be good for you with the 49mm filter.

My “unhappiness” is with 35mm f/2 - and it stems from a comparison to my favorite 35mm f/2 Super Takumar M42. The Pentax lens was used for some of my favorite pictures. I was jazzed to get the Zuiko, but I always found it not giving me the pictures I expected. It could have been the magic of being in my 20’s and fresh out of school. I thought I was seeing barrel distortion. And the Pentax felt more rectilinear.

There are other people who say that Zuiko 35 mm f/2 does have barrel distortion, so it must be true. Zuikos are good, but some are better than others and some M42 Super Takumars are legendary even today.

Quite a bit off topic here, but in agreement with Mr. Burk regarding "back-packing" lenses. When I was (much) younger, my kit for
hiking was a Canon A-1, and 35 plus 85 mm lenses (increments of 50 mm), occasionally including a 135 mm. All took a 52 mm CPL and the combo was just right for this.

It's always nice to have all lenses accept the same filter. Zuiko 135 mm f/2.8 was an oddball in this respect, as it had 55 mm thread.

I have the 28mm 2.8 and a few other OM lenses, haven't hit a bad one yet, and all my lenses are 49mm filter sized. Whatever you end up with I'd stick with the 49mm filter size (which matches your 100mm and 50mm). Simplifies life. Often pack 28mm and 85mm -- great combo -- so 35mm and 100mm is about the same ratio of focal length (3 to 1).

Some people praise 35-105 mm zoom lens and it covers all the basic focal lengths I might need, but I just can't convince myself to use a zoom lens. Olympus bodies and "slow" primes are so compact and then there are zooms

 

[Bill Burk]

There are other people who say that Zuiko 35 mm f/2 does have barrel distortion, so it must be true.

I hope it’s not just me saying it over and over.... Haaaa

 

[M-88]

I hope it’s not just me saying it over and over.... Haaaa

Not at all, there's an article on slrlensreviews.com, which tested the lens on digital camera and it reads:

"
The lens carried a rather low amount of contrast at wider apertures, which made images look washed out and 'lifeless'. Contrast does not improve until the lens is stopped down to about f/8. The lens also produced pretty heavy halation (axial CA) with wide open apertures. Notice well defined haloes around bright white tree flowers in the first image in the image gallery. Color fringing (lateral CA) was present as well, predominantly around corners. The lens also fell prone to pretty heavy flare at wider apertures and aperture ghosting with smaller aperture levels. All that somewhat surprising for a multi-coated lens. Finally, OM Zuiko 35mm f/2 showed minor degree of barrel distortion". I guess compact size of Zuikos came at a certain price, after all. I also read elsewhere that 35 mm f/2.8 does not have a barrel distortion, on the other hand.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Olympus's OM system had some incredible lenses. The 35mm f2 and 35mm f2.8 were not among them. They're both weak compared to the 35mm lenses made by Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and Minolta.

 

[M-88]

Olympus's OM system had some incredible lenses. The 35mm f2 and 35mm f2.8 were not among them. They're both weak compared to the 35mm lenses made by Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and Minolta.

And I trust you have first hand experience with them? How do they perform compared to other Zuikos?

 

[Bill Burk]

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.

 

[baachitraka]

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

35 f/2.8 is no bad either.