Canon 35/2.0 versus Olympus PenF 38/1.8

[goamules]

Trying to pick a small, light, wide angle for an upcoming trip, I decided to do a shootout between a Canon 35mm 2.0 (the Japanese Sumicron) and a Olympus Zuiko Pen half frame 38mm 1.8. Shots at F2, F4, and F8 so you can tell the aperture is changing. Both are very high quality lenses. Click for larger.
The fastest here:

 

[goamules]

Both F4

 

[zuikologist]

I like the 38/1.8 alot. It lives on my NEX7 - high quality and compact.

 

[goamules]

That's what surprised me, the Olympus Pen lens seems better than the Canon. Not just "as good" but better. I wanted a Canon RF 35/2 for a long time and finally got one. it was mint, with just a little internal dust. I sent it to DAG for a cleaning and am starting to shoot it. But the colors are cool, it's just a flat, sharp, lens like millions of others. The Pen-F lens is the same size and weight, and the colors are warmer. The sharpness and contrast are slightly better on the above shots. Right Click them, then choose "open in new Tab) to compare larger versions side by side. F8:

 

[traveler_101]

That's what surprised me, the Olympus Pen lens seems better than the Canon. Not just "as good" but better.

Why is it surprising that the Olympus lens is slightly better? Before all this nonsense with digitalisation shook up the photographic world, Olympus was one of the "big four" along with Nikon, Canon and Pentax. Of course Olympus products, and especially its lenses, were very highly respected. At that time firms like Panasonic and SONY were making stereo receivers and tuners; Panasonic was famous for its plasticky "el cheapo" products.

 

[ferider]

Not surprising that the Oly (which I use on film) performs better since it matches the format that you are using better. If you would compare a full frame picture taken with the canon to a half frame taken with the Pen lens the results would be different.

This tells you something about using full frame lenses on smaller digital format, in general, IMO.

Good test.

 

[raid]

Not surprising that the Oly (which I use on film) performs better since it matches the format that you are using better. If you would compare a full frame picture taken with the canon to a half frame taken with the Pen lens the results would be different.

This tells you something about using full frame lenses on smaller digital format, in general, IMO.

Good test.

You shoot through the center of the full frame lenses on m4/3 cameras, and you capture the sharpest images possible with that lens.

 

[ferider]

You shoot through the center of the full frame lenses on m4/3 cameras, and you capture the sharpest images possible with that lens.

Not if you target the same print size (or web image size for that matter) Raid. With this test only the center is in focus anyways. You take a ff picture and blow it up to 8x10. You take a Half frame picture and have to blow it up twice as much. For the same print size, the ff lens gains factor 2 in center resolution. Like comparing a medium format image to a 35mm image at the same viewing size.

 

[goamules]

I'm not blowing up anything or printing anything. I'm showing what the lens does, on the sensor. It would look the same on 35mm film. More contrast and sharpness from the Zuiko. I'm using the sweet spot of coverage with the Canon, the center. The Pen-F lens may be closer to it's limits of it's coverage. The Pen-F lens is looking better. Which is surprising because the X sensor is only using the inside 1/2 of the Canon's coverage, and like said above, the inside of a lens is always better than the edges.

I shot the two lenses on a Fuji X-E1. I've always like Olympus Pen-F lenses, but I always heard the Canon 35/2.0 was "summicron quality" and the best 35mm made by Canon. It's good, but the inexpensive Zuiko 38/1.8 looks better.

 

[ferider]

It would look the same on half format film, but that's not what the canon was made for.

The canon 35/2 is summicron quality but optimized and compared to a summicron on full frame. On full frame, f2 for a 35mm wide angle lens is fast. On half frame, f1.8 for a 38mm normal lens is mediocre. Much easier to optimize the half frame lens. Which is why - for the Pen lens - a basic 6 element Ultron design was good enough. To support the full frame wide angle speed, the Canon is a middle extended Planar with 7 elements, if I remember right.

Try a 6x6 Distagon (a great lens with great reputation) on your Fuji and you will be disappointed even more, it will not match its reputation.

Let me put it like this: for your platform, your Pen lens might even outclass the latest 35mm Summicron Asph.

Anyways, no point in arguing further, if you like your Pen lens, that's all that matters.

Roland.

 

[goamules]

...

Let me put it like this: for your platform, your Pen lens might even outclass the latest 35mm Summicron Asph.
....

Interesting assumption. But nothing is "optimized" for certain sized sensors. From my large format work I know that different sized pieces of ground glass ("sensors" or "format size") are the same to the lens. I can put a 135mm lens on a 35mm camera, or on a quarterplate, or even a 4x5 (the Ektar 127/4.7). As the ground glass shrinks, it's simply like putting a cardboard mask over a larger sensor. Nothing has changed except you're cropping the edges.

Perhaps what you're saying is with larger sensors, you'd get into the normal edge aberration of the Zuiko 38mm faster. It depends on the design. Some, like a Protar V, are inherently wide, about 90 degrees angle of view. Some, like a Petzval, are narrow, about 35 degrees. I suspect the angle of view of the Canon 2.0 and the Zuiko 1.8 are the same, or close.

So we're saying the same thing I suppose; The center sharpness, warm colors, and contrast of the Olympus Zuiko surpasses the Canon. On the APS-C sized sensor this is all that matters. On larger "ground glass/sensors" like 35mm, the edges of one or the other lens may show some aberrations. Or may not, it remains to be seen if the 38mm Zuiko would trump the 35mm Canon on full frame too.

By the way, the number of elements doesn't equate to the quality or resolution of the image. I know of a few 4 element designs that will blow away a 6 or 7 element design for sharpness and contrast. But the angle of view isn't wide so you can't get a short focal length with large coverage from one.

 

[ferider]

I think we are converging 🙂

The nr. of elements (actually the number of surfaces) was the degree of freedom designers had to correct for a number of aberrations, not just center resolution. Generally, the fewer the number of air/glass surfaces, the more transmission and contrast you get.

Historically, lenses back in the days were designed like this: designers picked a proven design, and then assembled a system of linear equations for each lens surface (Pen 38/1.8: 11, Canon 35/2: 12), which optimized at least the Seidel aberrations at image center and corner, for different focus distances, via manual ray-tracing, and by making conscious trade-offs. Then they solved this system of equations. When you read early lens patents of simple designs, you can follow this process. In the 1950s in Japan, rooms full of people would solve equation systems manually and in parallel (via Gauss elimination, for instance). Later, this was done by computers (the earliest I know of is the DR Summicron for which Mandler used a Zuse Z5 in the mid 1950s; for being "only" f2, the early Summicrons are extraordinarily complex).

You will not find a middle-corrected Planar design as in the Canon for 50mm equiv. lenses in any format. These were specifically used for moderate wide angles (as in the early 35mm Summilux) to optimize distortion and field resolution at high speeds (f2 and faster, on FF). Mid 1960s forward, for most f1.8 and above normal lenses, designers used 6 element Planar (10 surfaces) or Ultron designs (as in your 38/1.8); these were extended by additional rear elements for "fast" normal lenses, as in, say, the Pen Zuiko 42/1.2.

Roland.

 

[kuuan]

the Pen-F 1.8/38 covers the FF sensor of Sony A7, wide open barely and with strong vignetting, see


Untitled by Andreas, on Flickr

 

[kuuan]

more Pen-F 1.8/38 wide open and uncropped on A7 ( very fresh, taken out of curiosity )

100% crop

100% crop

and the Canon LTM f2/35mm wide open and uncropped

WB on both OOC

 

[Darinwc]

The Olympus Pen was a half-frame camera system. The Pen 38mm f1.8 was a 'normal' lens for that system. It was designed to cover only the half frame, even if it illuminates a full frame. A half-frame is about the same size as an APS-C sensor. You can see in the full frame examples above, that it exhibits vignetting and spherical aberrations in the areas outside its intended coverage.

The Canon lens was a wide-angle design. It had to cover a full 35mm frame and try to remain sharp with less vignetting out to the edge of the frame.

But praise must be given to the Olympus designers. It is well known that the PEN lenses were very sharp. And the fact that the 38mm covers a full frame, even if not the best in the corners, is quite commendable.

 

[kuuan]

right, since I am using the Pen-F 1.8/38 on Sony A7 I don't think of it being a halfframe normal lens any more but, and used on the FF sensor it is, a 38mm wide angle lens with excellent centre sharpness already @f1.8, weak corners and strong vignetting.
Often it is my lens of choice and often I like the vignetting, sometimes even the loss of sharpness towards the corners

both @f1.8 on Sony A7, first slightly cropped ( lower right corner ), 2nd uncropped, no treatment / brightening of corners


Untitled by andreas, on Flickr


Untitled by andreas, on Flickr

( wished that the Pen-F 1.4/40 would cover the FF as well as the 38mm, on APS-C it used to be my most used lens.)

 

[Mackinaw]

Apples and oranges comparison. The Canon was designed to fill an image circle of about 43mm. A half-frame lens was designed to fill an image circle of about 29mm. Totally different optical parameters, and challenges.

Another way to look at it, put your Olympus half-frame lens on a full-frame sensor camera, take a picture, and see what you get.

Jim B.

 

[kuuan]

Apples and oranges comparison. The Canon was designed to fill an image circle of about 43mm. A half-frame lens was designed to fill an image circle of about 29mm. Totally different optical parameters, and challenges.

Another way to look at it, put your Olympus half-frame lens on a full-frame sensor camera, take a picture, and see what you get.

Jim B.

Jim the images that I posted show exactly that, all had been taken on 'full-frame' sensor ( Sony A7 )

another one taken on fullframe Sony A7 wide open and uncropped


Untitled by andreas, on Flickr
( vignetting, of course, decreases stopped down. may add some pics taken @f5.6 or f8, but first have to take them 😉 )

 

[Range-rover]

Why is it surprising that the Olympus lens is slightly better? Before all this nonsense with digitalisation shook up the photographic world, Olympus was one of the "big four" along with Nikon, Canon and Pentax. Of course Olympus products, and especially its lenses, were very highly respected. At that time firms like Panasonic and SONY were making stereo receivers and tuners; Panasonic was famous for its plasticky "el cheapo" products.

Ah! yes the Classics!

 

[kuuan]

Why is it surprising that the Olympus lens is slightly better? Before all this nonsense with digitalisation shook up the photographic world, Olympus was one of the "big four" along with Nikon, Canon and Pentax. Of course Olympus products, and especially its lenses, were very highly respected. At that time firms like Panasonic and SONY were making stereo receivers and tuners; Panasonic was famous for its plasticky "el cheapo" products.

Ah! yes the Classics!

just to do justice to Panasonic, under the brand name "Technics" it also offered high end hifi products already in the 60s, the decade of the Pen-Fs, specially in the 70s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technics_(brand)