Wide angle lens for OM?

Anon Ymous · Feb 7, 2008

Hello, I recently started photography as a hobby and I need some advice. I have an Olympus OM10 with the classic 50mm f/1.8 lens. I am happy with my camera and I just need a wide angle lens to get these photos that I can't get with the 50mm. I'm thinking about getting the 28mm f/2.8. It seems to be reasonably priced. I also have a Hoya linear polariser (the regular, not HMC or Pro). So, has anybody used this lens? Will I have a problem with vigneting if I use it with the polariser on? Is it sharp, or is it kind of... blury?

Thanks in advance!

Andy K · Feb 7, 2008

The 28 f2.8 is an excellent lens. If you use a polariser there should be no vignetting. I made the attached photographs with Olympus OM-1, Zuiko 28mm f2.8 and a polarising filter.

Ps. Welcome to APUG.

Shiny · Feb 7, 2008

I have the Zuiko 28mm f/2.8 and Tamron 28mm f/2.5, both very good - there are several pictures from Greece in my gallery using a Polariser with no vignetting problems.

If you use a lens hood you will need a special wide-angle one to avoid vignetting.

Jim

Anon Ymous · Feb 7, 2008

Wow! Instant reply The photos look nice. I like these clouds. And no vignetting evident. Time to order one...

Oh, thanks a lot!

Blighty · Feb 7, 2008

The 24mm is also an excellent lens and very sharp too.

PhotoJim · Feb 7, 2008

I prefer a 24mm lens personally, but a 28 is a really good focal length for a first wide angle lens. Some find 24 to be too wide.

28 is much, much wider than 50 so you will find it to be a big help. The prices are also pretty attractive.

oldglass · Feb 7, 2008

Good and reasonable suggestions here.

The best OM wideangle I have in terms of contrast and sharpness is the 24/2.8 but I often find it too wide.

The 28/2.8 is a close second and don't dismiss the Tamron 28/2.5 mentioned above also, that's one unassuming, but excellent lens.

Anon Ymous · Feb 7, 2008

PhotoJim said:
I prefer a 24mm lens personally, but a 28 is a really good focal length for a first wide angle lens. Some find 24 to be too wide.

28 is much, much wider than 50 so you will find it to be a big help. The prices are also pretty attractive.

Yes, 24mm seem to be very nice, but I did a bit of research on the internet and I got the impression that it is exactly at the point where distortion gets a bit evident. Am I wrong? The 24mm f2.8 is also reasonably priced and well within my budget (80 euros for the 28mm, 100 for the 24mm from ffordes), but you get about 8 degrees more field of view and a bit more distortion. Any comments?

rusty71 · Feb 7, 2008

Anon Ymous said:
Hello, I recently started photography as a hobby and I need some advice. I have an Olympus OM10 with the classic 50mm f/1.8 lens. I am happy with my camera and I just need a wide angle lens to get these photos that I can't get with the 50mm. I'm thinking about getting the 28mm f/2.8. It seems to be reasonably priced. I also have a Hoya linear polariser (the regular, not HMC or Pro). So, has anybody used this lens? Will I have a problem with vigneting if I use it with the polariser on? Is it sharp, or is it kind of... blury?

Thanks in advance!

There are at least two versions of the OM Zuiko 28mm lens. I'm surprised no one mentioned the older, less expensive, and sharper 28mm f3.5.
I got one for around $50 US and it's great. You can see some shots here:
Dead Link Removed
They are shot with Efke IR film and thus don't really showcase the sharpness and contrast of this little gem of a lens. But there is a Zuiko 28mm group on flickr.com you should check out.

MattKing · Feb 8, 2008

I used my Zuiko 24mm f/2.8 for this shot from my APUG gallery:

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

Personally, I like the field of view of a 35mm lens - generally that is my "standard" lens. My current and favorite kit is 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0 and 85mm f/2.0 - all Zuiko.

I used one of my Zuiko 35mm f/2.0 lenses for this shot from my APUG gallery:

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

For years I used a 28mm f/3.5 lens, a 50mm f/1.8 lens and a 135mm f/3.5 lens (all Zuiko), but I prefer my current kit - not because of quality concerns, but definitely because of size, and speed.

Matt

Whoops - I just realized that you are not a subscriber, so you won't be able to look at my gallery photos. I'll attempt to post the 24mm photo here:

Anon Ymous said:
Yes, 24mm seem to be very nice, but I did a bit of research on the internet and I got the impression that it is exactly at the point where distortion gets a bit evident. Am I wrong? The 24mm f2.8 is also reasonably priced and well within my budget (80 euros for the 28mm, 100 for the 24mm from ffordes), but you get about 8 degrees more field of view and a bit more distortion. Any comments?

Mick Fagan · Feb 8, 2008

Regarding the different usage of the 28mm and the 24mm lenses and the slight distortion of the 24mm lens over the 28mm lens, this is my point of view.

When I'm travelling on a trip I usually take 3 lenses and a body, there are two combinations I take.

28 / 50 / 105 for general landscape, portrait and travel shooting.

24 / 50 / 105 for a trip to Europe where I will often be shooting buildings or cityscapes, as well as general landscape, portrait and travel shooting.

I find the 24 is invaluable when shooting in the old parts of cities. You get so much more in the 24mm frame with your back to a wall on the other side of the street, compared to a 28m lens.

Distortion with the 24mm frame is there, but is often only noticeable if you take a group shot of people and crowd the frame. The people on the edges will have slightly elongated bodies.

Andy K has samples shot with a 28mm lens. Those types of scenes usually work better with a 28mm lens. A 24mm lens for those scenes would include so much more and the small details would really be a fair bit smaller.

Mick.

Anon Ymous · Feb 8, 2008

Mick Fagan said:
...I find the 24 is invaluable when shooting in the old parts of cities. You get so much more in the 24mm frame with your back to a wall on the other side of the street, compared to a 28m lens...

...Andy K has samples shot with a 28mm lens. Those types of scenes usually work better with a 28mm lens. A 24mm lens for those scenes would include so much more and the small details would really be a fair bit smaller.

Mick.

You've got some interesting points there. A 24mm will obviously give you some more oportunities. On the other hand, I'm kind of picky when it comes to distortion. Combined with the fact that you may lose some interesting details I guess that the 28mm is the golden mean for me. It's a good start anyway.

panastasia · Feb 8, 2008

Mick gives a good explanation of the distortion (w/both lenses). If you keep the camera level, linear distortion is not a problem and you can crop the 24mm image (stretched ends) to appear like the 28mm.

In 35mm format I never go wider than 28mm (I hate distortion in most images), but using a 22-25mm equivalent LF wide-angle, such as the 47mm, is a different story - less disturbing distortion.

Uncle Bill · Feb 8, 2008

I have the Zuiko 28 f3.5 lens in my OM kit and I am very happy with it. I could not believe how sharp it was.

PhotoJim · Feb 8, 2008

Anon Ymous said:
Yes, 24mm seem to be very nice, but I did a bit of research on the internet and I got the impression that it is exactly at the point where distortion gets a bit evident. Am I wrong? The 24mm f2.8 is also reasonably priced and well within my budget (80 euros for the 28mm, 100 for the 24mm from ffordes), but you get about 8 degrees more field of view and a bit more distortion. Any comments?

The 24 doesn't distort, per se, but the wider field of view does make images look different.

I can't tell you for certain whether you'll prefer a 24 or a 28. I can only tell you that I prefer a 24, but I didn't exactly feel disadvantaged when my widest lens was a 28. I loved that focal length. I still do. I just love 24 more now.

panastasia · Feb 8, 2008

PhotoJim said:
The 24 doesn't distort, per se, but the wider field of view does make images look different.
QUOTE]

Not true,

If the film plane had the same curvature as the lenses projected image the wide lenses wouldn't distort the image. Since the film is flat, the elongated ends of the image are the result of the curved image produced by the lens being projected onto a flat (film) plane - more pronounced the wider you go.

If that's not distortion in some form what would you call it? All lenses distort!

PhotoJim · Feb 8, 2008

I guess it depends on how you define distortion. Compared to a fisheye lens, a rectilinear wide angle lens has no distortion at all.

Allan Swindles · Feb 8, 2008

You won't go wrong with the original Zuiko 28mm f3.5. The 2.8 version came along later and IMHO offers no improvement in image quality, some say less. Be aware though that these lenses are now 25/30 years old and are likely to suffer from weak diaphragm return so check before you buy. CLA is not a problem but it will add £30/40 to the cost.

SAlred · Feb 8, 2008

I'll chime in on the 28mm f/3.5 as a fine little lens. I spent my "Grand Tour" summer (1978) roaming around Europe with an OM-1, the 28 f/3.5 and the 100 f/2.8 shooting Kodachrome 64 (!). I have some wonderful shots from inside the Pantheon and St. Peters in Rome taken with the 28.

I splurged on a 28 f/2.0 Zuiko when I returned to the States, but it that was pure GAS in action. The 3.5 is a gem.

Steve A.

panastasia · Feb 8, 2008

The 28mm f/2.0 looks like a keeper, I would go for that one. Plenty wide for most practical shots (75 deg angle-of-view). The 24 is more extreme (something like, 82 deg angle-of-view), near-far subjects appear unrealistic, IMO, but sometimes that's what makes the shot work. You can alway go more-wide later, what's wider than 24mm?

Andy K · Feb 9, 2008

panastasia said:
. You can alway go more-wide later, what's wider than 24mm?

I believe the OM Zuiko lens range included 21mm, 16mm and even an 8mm fisheye.

<edit> Here is a page which lists the OM Zuiko lens range: http://www.datasync.com/~farrar/zuiko.html

Anon Ymous · Feb 9, 2008

SAlred said:
I'll chime in on the 28mm f/3.5 as a fine little lens. I spent my "Grand Tour" summer (1978) roaming around Europe with an OM-1, the 28 f/3.5 and the 100 f/2.8 shooting Kodachrome 64 (!)...

I splurged on a 28 f/2.0 Zuiko when I returned to the States, but it that was pure GAS in action. The 3.5 is a gem.

Steve A.

Summer 1978... I must have been 6 months old back then .

Eventualy, I followed my gut feeling and ordered the 28 f2.8. You never know, f2.8 could make a difference between possible and imposible. And it wasn't for a lot more money, as opposed for the f2.

Oh, by the way, what does GAS mean?

Mick Fagan · Feb 9, 2008

Andy, the Zuiko wide angle lenses finished at 18mm.

I have shot with it and it is as good as the Nikkor 18mm.

I have also used the Zuiko 16mm fish eye and compared it to the Nikkor 15mm rectilinear. They are both extremely good, extremely pricey and extremely different.

Mick.

PhotoJim · Feb 9, 2008

It's kind of hard to go wrong here. There are few awful 28s out there.

I think the 28 was a wise choice. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see you wanting a 24 in a few months, but the 28 is so inexpensive that even if you end up with a 24, the 28 will earn its keep regardless.

I've occasionally been tempted to get a 28/3.5 as a throw-around lens (Nikon had a pretty good one too), but so far I've resisted.

Wide angle lens for OM?

Anon Ymous

Andy K

Attachments

Shiny

Anon Ymous

Blighty

PhotoJim

oldglass

Anon Ymous

rusty71

MattKing

Moderator

Attachments

Mick Fagan

Anon Ymous

panastasia

Uncle Bill

PhotoJim

panastasia

PhotoJim

Allan Swindles

SAlred

panastasia

Andy K

Anon Ymous

Mick Fagan

PhotoJim

Wide angle lens for OM?

Attachments

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency