OM Zuiko or the 40mm on a 35SP

[Jim Simon]

Hello. I know this an OM group, and I am a dedicated OM user, but I wondered if I was allowed to ask about a 35SP I'm thinking of buying. Can anyone offer any insights into how the captive 40mm lens on the 35SP compares to the OM stable?

 

[Jim Simon]

I'm replying to myself.
In the absense of any thoughts here I bought a 35SP on the bay thinking I could do my own test and re-sell if I wanted as long as I didn't pay too much. Under £60 inc. postage and it all works!
Have put two rolls through it; HP5 and Tri-X. I think the camera slightly over-exposes, even though the EV values are spot on. However, I ran the Tri-X at 400 asa and developed it as if at 200 and it was very good.
So; OM Zuiko v 40mm on the SP? I believe the SP's lens to be sharper than any of the OM Zuikos I have, and to be a particular real star wide open; it's proved astonishing in low light. It seems to be a lighter-toned lens compared to the OM lenses I have, though I don't imagine this is possible and imagine it must be something to do with the exposure/dev regime I have used, but it does seem to have a light character.
Will I be using the OM or the SP? Both, though the SP's performance in low light is really something it's not as handy a package compared to the OM cameras.
I'll post some images if I can and if anyone's interested.
Jim.

 

[darinwc]

Jim, if you are comparing film shot and developed at iso 400 vs 200, that could make a big difference in apparent sharpness.
Try a roll of tri-x on your OM overexposed and developed at 200 like the other.

Also, what lens on your OM are you comparing it to?

 

[Jim Simon]

I see what you mean, but I was adjusting the camera's setting as I think it slightly over-exposes. I already expose Tri-X @ 200 and under-devlope and have many rolls like this from OM's, and was roughly bringing the actual exposures on my SP more into line with those of an accurate camera. Not an exact compensation, but it made a difference in the right direction according to how my scanner saw the negs.
Lenses? The 50mm 1.8, a few wider angle f2.8's and the 135mm f3.5, all of which I like. Also shot some frames for comparason with my Leitz Summaron and Elmar on an M2. The 35SP was much nearer the Leitz lenses than the OM Zuikos. I don't believe sharpness is everything, but I like the focal length on the SP and will carry on with it. Incidentally the most noticeable characteristic wasn't the sharpness but the SP has an pleasing light tone to the image. I suppose it must be a skewed curve somehow, something to do with the glass?? ...but in saying that I guess I'm showing my undoubted ignorance. But I have eyes and the tonal difference is apparent.
I also think the SP's lens is particularly sharp at wider apertures - the same as my f2.8 Summaron wide open - but other lenses overtake or at least match it as the apertures close up. It's interesting. It's a handy camera, though I shall still use the OM's of course.
Jim.

 

[Jim Baker]

It would be interesting if you could post some photos to show what you mean by the 'lightness' of the lens image.

 

[thuggins]

The lens on the 35SP is legendary. Along with the spot metering and the full metered manual mode, this is generally recognized as one of the best RF's ever made. The pictures from mine are sublime. But after running a number of rolls thru it (plus the SPn, UC, RD, DC, etc. etc.), they all went back on the shelf and I'm back with my OM's. The RF's just can't compare to the versatility of the SLR, and I always found the 40mm FL a bit odd. You wouldn't think it would be that much different from my favorite 35mm, but it really is noticeable in terms of composition.

My biggest beef with the RF's was the long, stuff shutter release that was required to trap the meter and set the aperture. I would get pushbuttonitis after a day of shooting, and you never knew exactly when the shutter would snap. This caused a big problem with camera shake and resulted in a number a blurred shots (something that is never a problem with the OMs).