OM, I've become a Zuikoholic!

I found the spot meter very useful - but it is best to play with it if you are shooting slow, meditating about the composition, tones, etc.. But simply I don't do that when I have a 35mm camera in hand, I'm just snapping.. :) Therefore I'd like to switch to an OM1 - just set a shutter speed, maybe play a bit with the aperture and shoot ahead..
 
You don't have to use the spot meter. I just like it when I see a person, I spot them, and then shoot. It means they will be exposed right.
 
I have not figured out how to use the meter on the OM-4 or OM-3. I will admit I've only invested about 30 minutes trying.

But with the OM-1 I always just used my eye to evaluate the scene and opened or closed a stop for compensation. Always got close enough.
 
I have a dillema, again ... I want to buy telephoto lens and of course the first lens i noticed was the 85 f2, but then i found 100 2.8 in local shop for reasonable price. So how longer actualy 100 is compared to 85 ? I used to have some 135 lenses and sold them all - just not my type of focal lenght, especially for portraits. I need something, when 50 is wide, but still be able to be close and not take just a head portraits. I hope you understand my dillema :)
 
Drago said:
I have a dillema, again ... I want to buy telephoto lens and of course the first lens i noticed was the 85 f2, but then i found 100 2.8 in local shop for reasonable price. So how longer actualy 100 is compared to 85 ? I used to have some 135 lenses and sold them all - just not my type of focal lenght, especially for portraits. I need something, when 50 is wide, but still be able to be close and not take just a head portraits. I hope you understand my dillema :)
Click to expand...

I have an 85/2 and a 100/2.8 and I like both. The 85 isa little better as a portrait lens, but the difference in focal length is not great. The 100 is 1/3 the cost of the 85.
 
JSU said:
Nothing at all wrong with the OM2n and there is a lot right about it. After getting a couple of OM4's, I can't part ways with my OM2n's, they are just special.
Click to expand...
I agree; the OM-2N gets more use than the OM-1Ns and OM-4 and OM-4T that I own.
 
someone want to try to convince me to keep my 28/2?

took it as my only lens on vacation; old glasses RX + dof = impossible to focus indoors. not sure I see any advantage it has over 28/3.5 other than it can reign in DoF when used outside on slooooooow film.
 
redisburning said:
someone want to try to convince me to keep my 28/2?

took it as my only lens on vacation; old glasses RX + dof = impossible to focus indoors. not sure I see any advantage it has over 28/3.5 other than it can reign in DoF when used outside on slooooooow film.
Click to expand...
Well, if I had a 28/2.0, I would always find a reason to keep it. :D

Firstly, it does offer a brighter viewfinder than the slower specimen - albeit the difference might be arguably low compared with the 28/2.8.
If you really want to use it in bright light, an ND will do the trick.
The wider focusing ring of the 2.0 might also feel more comfortable for photographers with larger hands/fingers.

And, as you already have it, holding onto it doesn't seem to be a bad option when considering rising prices for lenses.

Have you considered contact lenses or adjusting diopter lenses in front of the viewfinder? Personally, I like to use contact lenses as I feel it's much more comfortable and practicable than wearing glasses most times.
 
I would say either upgrade your RX or, as suggested, an eyepiece diopter. If you have a good optometrist, they can help with either.
 
Trius said:
I would say either upgrade your RX or, as suggested, an eyepiece diopter. If you have a good optometrist, they can help with either.
Click to expand...
What spoils diopters for me, is that once your eye is off the viewfinder, you will need glasses again.
Unless one wears those ridiculous flip up glasses, it's a pain in the derriere in terms of practicability.
 
redisburning said:
someone want to try to convince me to keep my 28/2?

took it as my only lens on vacation; old glasses RX + dof = impossible to focus indoors. not sure I see any advantage it has over 28/3.5 other than it can reign in DoF when used outside on slooooooow film.
Click to expand...
Just comparing Gary Reese's tests (http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?o...nid=10&id=45&Itemid=97&limit=50&limitstart=50) of the two lenses would be enough for me to keep my 28/f2. The 28/f2 was generally considered to be the sharpest OM lens, ever.
 
FTography said:
What spoils diopters for me, is that once your eye is off the viewfinder, you will need glasses again.
Unless one wears those ridiculous flip up glasses, it's a pain in the derriere in terms of practicability.
Click to expand...

The diopter can complement your spectacles. Your optometrist can help. Just don't expect success with a "doc in the box" chain operation.
 
7462247144_90026fbd8b_b.jpg
 
The 28 2.8 has much better contrast than the 3.5. It is worth the upgrade. I don't know if it is a difference in coating or what. I'd love the f2, but since I basically got the f2.8 for free, it is still real nice.
 
I've had both 3.5 and 2.8. I shot the same subject on the same film (Elitechrome, IIRC,) and decided there wasn't any real difference so I sold the 3.5. I may have had a different version of 3.5, as the contrast was identical. At least in my memory. I don't have the originals at hand to review, and I'm not sure if I posted the results anywhere.
 
I've got some shots with the 28/3.5 on acros in broad daylight that are stunning.

sometimes high resolution and moderate contrast is good.

for me the best thing about the 28 is shooting at f2-4, but mostly f2. you can get decent DoF control, whether or not you can get decent processing from CVS is another matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom