Zuiko 35/2.8 vs 35/2

Snapper

• Jan 29, 2011

• #1

Hi All, I'm new to The Cult, having bought an OM2-n recently. I made a bit of an impulse buy this week, getting a 35/2 lens, but now I have both the 35/2.8 and 35/2. One will have to go.

I've yet to try the f2 out yet, but I'm already hearing that it's not that highly rated, despite costing about 3 times that of the f2.8.

So what's the view of The Cult?

I like the look of the f2, but I also like the 2.8. But which is better? There's only one way to find out.....

 

Q.G.

• Jan 30, 2011

• #2

Indeed!

 

drmarkf

• Jan 30, 2011

• #3

I think you'll find most people have tried one or the other (the f2 in my case) and you'll just have to do some pioneer work and let us know the answers...

With regard to the f2, reviews haven't been entirely kind over the sharpness & distortion wide open. However, I used one as my prime lens for around a decade on my OM-4 and never had a problem.

It must be said, however, that I mainly used it for street photography, landscapes and non-critical shooting. For architecture, macro and full aperture stuff I had a Tamron 90mm f2.5 and a Zuiko 21mm f3.5, so I'm not sure I'd have noticed problems with the 35. Some sources have said there was a lot of variation among copies of the lens, so maybe I got a good one.

 

Allan Swindles

• Jan 30, 2011

• #4

Unless you shoot in very low light or need less DOF, chances are, you will never use the lens wide open, so do you REALLY need f2. I have a Zuiko 35mm f2.8, it's perfectly adequate and a lot less money. I'm also a Hasselblad user so I am well into QUALITY lenses. I'd sell the f2 but of course it's up to you.

 

mopar_guy

• Jan 31, 2011

• #5

I like slower films, so sometimes I need the extra stop. I also happen to live in one of the cloudiest, rainiest parts of the world and even a 400 speed film requires f 2.0 or brighter.

 

MattKing

• Feb 12, 2011

• #6

I really like the f/2 version. When compared with the f/2.8 version, while composing and focusing, the viewfinder is brighter and the depth of field is shallower - both of which I appreciate in challenging conditions.

I've never seen anything that indicates that the f/2.8 version is better when stopped down.

The f/2.8 version is smaller and lighter, and uses the 49mm filters that are relatively standard through the system. If those criteria are important to you, then the f/2.8 version may be best for you.

If realizing on market value is your primary concern, the f/2 version may be the best one to sell.

Otherwise, I would keep the f/2 version.

 

thuggins

• Feb 13, 2013

• #7

I have heard the same comments about the f2 and honestly don't recall if I've used mine (from the looks of it, the original owner never used it either). The f2.8 is so much smaller and convenient. If I've going to use a lens as big as the f2, the 35-70f3.6 is the first choice. The extra stops are not a big deal; you can push Provia 400 at least two stops with no problem.