What moderate wide-angle for Olympus OM?

[darinwc]

What moderate wide-angle lens for Olympus OM?

Does anyone have a preference on Olympus lenses in the 28-35mm range?
Are there any 40mm OM lenses?

 

[maderik]

Are there any 40mm OM lenses?

There was one: the 40mm f/2.0.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/40mm.htm

KEH currently has a few but they are not inexpensive.

 

[plummerl]

I would have to vote for the 28mm f/2.0!

 

[PaulW128]

I have a 28 3.5 which is nice (if you don't need anything faster) and they're dirt cheap!!

good luck
Paul

 

[MattKing]

35mm f/2.0!

My favourite lens (well, the 85mm f/2.0 is very close).

Matt

 

[darinwc]

Sometimes the brighter lenses aren't necessarily sharper..
What of the 28mm f2 and 35mm f2 as opposed to the slower versions?

 

[naugastyle]

I have the 28/2.8, and it's my absolute favorite.

Oh, and for MUCH less than a new lens, you could pick up an Olympus Trip 35, with a 40/2.8 Zuiko lens .

 

[MattKing]

I've never owned the slower version of the 35mm. In fact, I own two of them, because I consider it to be my standard lens.

I find it to be very sharp, and of moderate contrast.

The f/2.0 aperture makes it very easy to focus.

The only minor downside, as far as I'm concerned, is that it is somewhat large for an Olympus lens (about the same as my 50mm f/1.4), and it takes 55mm filters

Here is an example shot from my APUG gallery:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Matt

 

[Ken N]

Here are three options. The 35 F2.8, the 35 Shift and the 35-80 f2.8 zoom:

I love the 35 F2.8 lens and it along with my 100 F2.8 are my dying grasp lenses. I personally consider the 35mm focal length to be my "normal" focal length.

 

[Vincent Brady]

I rather like the 35mm shift lens myself.

 

[wblynch]

I have the 28/2.8, and it's my absolute favorite.

I'll second this. I've carried an OM 28 (3.5 and 2.8) around since the 1970s and I still use it today.

24: too wide -- 35: too tight -- 28: ahhh, just right.

 

[Allan Swindles]

I'm more than pleased with my 28mm f3.5, larger aperture lenses will give a brighter screen image but I don't have trouble focussing, even with the plain 1-4 screen. Unless you plan to photograph an elephant in a coal cellar in available light you might not need anything faster. I also have the 35mm f2.8, equally pleasing and a good all-rounder, it depends as to what your main subjects are likely to be most suited.

 

[darinwc]

Wow that 40mm pancake is crazy expensive!

 

[Mike1234]

I owned the 24, 28, 35, 50 primes and a couple of zooms. I nearly always used the primes because every one of them were excellent. Sorry but I don't remember the max apertures of any except the 50... f/1.8. They were fine lenses all... especially the primes.

 

[darinwc]

I've never owned the slower version of the 35mm. In fact, I own two of them, because I consider it to be my standard lens.

I find it to be very sharp, and of moderate contrast.

The f/2.0 aperture makes it very easy to focus.

Here is an example shot from my APUG gallery:

Matt

Matt, I really like the image you referenced.. but it looks dithered. (am i using the right word?) is it a bad conversion to jpg or does the image naturaly look that way from the choppy water?

Anyway, if the 35mm f2.0 is the size of the 50mm f1.4, its still tiny compared to my canon FD lenses.

 

[Prest_400]

Ken, nice collection. But, where's the OM-1?
That silvernose looks nice. I'd like to get a silvernose lens someday; But I won't do many changes to my gear in the near future; only lens I consider adding is a 100mm f2.8. And maybe upgrade to a 50mm f1.4. And, yes, a scanner.

I'm more than pleased with my 28mm f3.5, larger aperture lenses will give a brighter screen image but I don't have trouble focussing, even with the plain 1-4 screen. Unless you plan to photograph an elephant in a coal cellar in available light you might not need anything faster. I also have the 35mm f2.8, equally pleasing and a good all-rounder, it depends as to what your main subjects are likely to be most suited.

I agree on the 28 f3.5. It's a quite nice lens, just that it's a bit slower and the focusing screen will be a bit dim. I often use a polarizer with this lens outdoors and it doesn't help on brightness.

I don't own the OMZ 35mm lenses. I'm quite happy with the MiJ 50mm 1.8; It's a bit hard on unfocused backgrounds and a nice lens, moderately fast (compared to the 35s and 28s). I like fast lenses, and being a indoor/lower light shooter, it helps.

 

[fschifano]

I cannot comment on the quality of Zuiko wide angle lenses since I own none. The only Zuiko I own is a 50 mm f/1.8 lens attached to an OM-G. I'm not crazy about the camera, but the lens is absolutely first rate - easily on par with the best of the Nikkors of that focal length in practical use. However, I do own wide angle primes in 20, 24, 28, and 35 mm focal lengths. Of them all, I find myself using the 24 mm lens the most. The way I figure it, if you want wide then go wide. The 28 is a really nice lens, but it's not wide enough for the way I see things. The 35 is too close to a 50 and doesn't see much use unless I'm looking for a more or less normal perspective in moderately tight spaces. The 20 is too wide for anything other than extreme perspective distortion, but fun when you want it.

 

[MattKing]

Matt, I really like the image you referenced.. but it looks dithered. (am i using the right word?) is it a bad conversion to jpg or does the image naturaly look that way from the choppy water?

Anyway, if the 35mm f2.0 is the size of the 50mm f1.4, its still tiny compared to my canon FD lenses.

Hi Darin:

I make no representation about the quality of my scanning or, in this case, "post-processing" skills .

I do tend to have problems with the size limits on APUG though.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you comment about dithering, but there are some surprising textures in the water in the machine prints I have.

I've looked for another scanned image for you. This might be better:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Matt

 

[Mike1234]

The OM-1 body was bullet-proof like the early Nikons or Pentax K-1000.... not much else to say on that matter. The bodies are just holders for the lenses and the old Zuikos were some of the best optics ever made, IMO. But... I haven't shot "serious" 135 in 25-28 years so my vision may be skewed.

 

[Arvee]

I have the 35mm f2.8 and I cannot see any differences between slides projected at 10' between my 35 f2.8 Zuiko and my Zeiss (Contax) 35 f2.8 Distagon. And, believe me, I have tried to make a case for one or the other. No dice, kept 'em both.

 

[tony lockerbie]

I have both the 35mm and 28mm in 2.8, excellent lenses, always seems a shame to put a big lens on the OM1. Incidentally, I much prefer the 50mm 1.8 to the 1.4 in Zuikos, probably the only brand where this is the case.

 

[c.w.]

I have a 35mm f2, and while the 55mm filter ring is annoying since virtually every other lens uses a 49mm, it's a very nice lens. For most OM zuikos faster = better quality, given a few fairly rare exceptions. The f2s were sort of the zuiko professional line from what i've read. Lower cost wides would be the 24 f2.8, 28 f3.5 and f2.8, and 35 f2.8. Most of the other options are much more expensive, starting with the 35 f2, then jumping up from there to the 40 f2, 28 f2 and 24 f2. There's a few zoom lenses, of which i haven't heard good things except for the 35-80 f2.8, and it's pretty rare and expensive.

 

[benOM]

I have the 35mm f2.8 silver nose and it's my go to lens most of the time but.. I find the front element touch's on my polarizer if I screw it on all the way I did not have that trouble with a non silver nose I borrowed once.

 

[benjiboy]

There was one: the 40mm f/2.0.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/40mm.htm

KEH currently has a few but they are not inexpensive.

40mm isn't really a wide angle on 35 mm but much closer to a standard lens than a 50mm on the format because the diagonal of the 24x36mm frame is about 42 mm.

 

[timk]

I own both the 28/2.8 and 35/2.8.

The 28/2.8 I've used quite a lot, it's a good lens, some enlargements I've done as 11x14 have been quite good, good contrast and doesn't show much in the way of vignetting/distortion, it can be a bit soft on the edges I think which is common with wides in this format & era. I don't use it much any more, I have started using the 24mm f/2.8 as my main wideangle.

The 35/2.8, haven't really used it enough so jury is still out. I like what I've seen so far, but if I had to pick one, I'd probably stick with the 28/2.8.