Peter_Jones
Well-known
I'll find out soon enough (just won one on a certain auction site), but the OM 35mm f/2.8 doesn't seem as popular as other focal lengths in the Zuiko series.
Has anyone used this lens and how do you see the results compared to other Zuikos ? (I know there are many variables with these lenses)
Has anyone used this lens and how do you see the results compared to other Zuikos ? (I know there are many variables with these lenses)
jmilkins
Digited User
It's probably eclipsed somewhat by its faster brother the 35/2 zuiko, which is generally very well regarded.
Have a look at this goldmine of info:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/index.htm
I like mine though - very small for an SLR lens and I'm happy with the quality.
Have a look at this goldmine of info:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/index.htm
I like mine though - very small for an SLR lens and I'm happy with the quality.
Last edited:
oscroft
Veteran
I have a multi-coated 35/2.8 Zuiko and I like it a lot - I think it's every bit as good as the 28/2.8, and has very similar optical characteristics.
breathstealer
Established
I've had nothing but good results with mine.
hans voralberg
Veteran
Yep, it's small, light and sharp, vivid colour reproduction. Dont think there are any bad zuiko out there
ruby.monkey
Veteran
It's small, sharp, fast-focussing, and a perfect match for a matte-with-grid screen. A lovely little lens.
newspaperguy
Well-known
Amen. One of my favorite Zooks, too...
along with the 50/3.5 macro and the 100/2.8.
along with the 50/3.5 macro and the 100/2.8.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I have one, an older single-coated one, as well as a newer multicoated 35mm f2 Zuiko. The 2.8 is half the size of the f2, and takes the same lens hood as the 50mm f1.8 and 1.4 zuikos. I like it for its small size and compatibility with the 50mm lenshoods....makes an easy to carry small kit. Sharpness wise, I thinks its the same as the f2, at least at midrange apertures. I have not tested the 2.8 wide open, though the f2 is kinda soft wide open. The 2.8 has a very slight barrel distortion that is not seen in the f2, and that's its only downside so far as I can see.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I also have both, I think the only aspect that the bigger and heavier 35/2 excels at is at micro-contrast. Therefore resulting in increased apparent sharpness and more "depth" look.
Peter_Jones
Well-known
Well, I'll have to wait to try a 35/2.8 as I have agreed with the seller to return it due to unacceptable scratches 
Oh well. At least my last slr lens purchase was a good 'un. (Tamron SP 28-80)
Oh well.
At least my last slr lens purchase was a good 'un. (Tamron SP 28-80)