Cheapest 35mm lens setup?

[Field]

I have an Olympus OM. I got a 50 1.8 MIJ that is good. The 28 3.5 is good too.

The problem is the 50 is long for a lot of shots. The 28 has too much distortion of the image when I do a hard like 1/3 or 1/4 subject shot toward the outside. It's just too wide for a lot of up close stuff.

I figure for less than half the price of an Olympus OM 40mm I can get another body of a different brand and a 35mm lens. I am not considering the Olympus 35mm lenses because everyone says they suck, and why add suck to two of Olympus's better lenses I already use?

Also if I do get something else, I can get a decent portrait lens since the Olympus line up doesn't appear to be offering much in a price range I can consider. Unless there is something I don't know about.

 

[David Hughes]

Oh no they don't

Oh no they don't

Hi,

Well, I for one don't think they suck and I think OM lenses are a bargain. And very nice too...

Regards, David

 

[Field]

35mm specifically, the rest seem fine.

 

[f16sunshine]

I have an Olympus OM. I got a 50 1.8 MIJ that is good. The 28 3.5 is good too.

The problem is the 50 is long for a lot of shots. The 28 has too much distortion of the image when I do a hard like 1/3 or 1/4 subject shot toward the outside. It's just too wide for a lot of up close stuff.

I figure for less than half the price of an Olympus OM 40mm I can get another body of a different brand and a 35mm lens. I am not considering the Olympus 35mm lenses because everyone says they suck, and why add suck to two of Olympus's better lenses I already use?

Also if I do get something else, I can get a decent portrait lens since the Olympus line up doesn't appear to be offering much in a price range I can consider. Unless there is something I don't know about.

The Om 35's do not suck. Not even kind of. Get the "lowly" f2.8/35mm for a few peanuts and see for yourself.
The f2/35 is not as sharp wide open as some but still very good. It is otherwise a great lens and much less expensive as other fast 35's.

 

[rover]

Don't believe anything that you read on the internet. Do you really want a separate body just for a 35mm lens? The MD Rokkor 35/1.8 is very very good, but that isn't a reason to go and get one and an SRT. I would suggest you give an OM 35 a try and decide for yourself. Who knows, you may find out that you like it, and that will save you room in your bag, and perhaps a couple bucks too.

 

[ferider]

I use the 35/2 and it's a wonderful lens. Gary Reese might have had a bad copy ....

Try the 35/2.8 if you are on a budget. Lot's of fans for this one. The 28-48 has its fans, too.

Roland.

 

[KoNickon]

I find the OM lenses, 35mm and otherwise, to be uniformly excellent. The 35/2 is top quality.

 

[nrb]

The 35/2.8 is very nice too.

 

[batterytypehah!]

Good advice I'm sure. I can't offer an opinion about OM lenses since the only Olympus anything I've ever owned is a dead P&S.

But... I don't think your original idea is all wrong, either. You could try the Hexanon 40/1.8. Minor cult item with the mirrorless digital crowd these days, but still only around $40. Less when attached to a body and not advertised properly. (The lens is easy to spot even on lousy auction photos, it's short and says 40/1.8 in red at 12 o'clock.)

Konica bodies are so cheap as to be disposable. I like the TC-X, small, light, all mechanical. Watch for broken battery covers, though.

Konica fanboy page here: http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/eKonicaStart.html

Yeah, I think they made some good portrait lenses, too...

 

[redisburning]

I have the 35/2.8 and I dont like it at all.

it's a shame, I like the focal length frankly; feels very natural to me on the street. but when I got scans back all of the shots I took with it made me get on ebay and look at other cameras lol. It isn't the worst OM lens I own, but it is the worst OM prime, IMO.

to be honest, my relationship with OM glass is not quite as pristine as most people around here; I got mine as gifts and so will never sell it (though I will probably pass it along to the next family member who shows any interest) and it wasn't until I got the 50/3.5 macro that I really was happy with an OM lens. that one is like my ZM planar and rokkor 58; something that does something unique (ZM is boring perfection, Rokkor is super speed and Zuiko gives me a strange look when it feels like pleasing me, I mentioned this in the OM thread). I havent gotten to try any of the f2.0 lenses; please feel free to send any and all to me for testing purposes lol.

I had two reasons for moving to M; RF focusing is a lot easier for me and the only SLR wide I really, really like is the 21/2.8 distagon.

as far as cheaper options go, I hear the Canon 35/2 SSC concave is pretty good.

 

[Field]

I looked through one at my local place, and it was junk. The Tokina zoom next to it was vastly superior.

Perhaps there are good Olympus OM 35mm's out there, but not in this town!

On the other hand I found a Minolta 45mm lens that is insanely sharp, attached to a old crap 370 body. I may consider making an offer for just the lens (which is BGN condition but fine). Other than that I am thinking about a Konica 40mm since TC bodies are like, disposable.

 

[Roscoe]

I'd start taking a tally on mention of the OM 35mm, either the f2 or f2.8 version. After a while, look at the list and see what leads, positive or negative. I'd bet it's not as bad as the few make it seem...

I really like my 2.8 and would love to try the f2, but lately I either grab the 50/1.4 or the 24/2. Not much of a fan of the 28mm length.

Or a different direction, Yashica ML 35/2.8 or if you want to spend more, Zeiss 35/2.8 Distagon? Both on a very inexpensive Yashica body? Paid $40 for my FR with a ML 50/1.7 and ML 80-200/4

 

[Joe Vitessa]

Yeah, my experiences with OM glass haven't been as positive as others around here either. My 35mm 2.8 was just OK. I've been much happier with my Konica 40mm (although my Konica 35mm 2.8 was worse than the Zuiko.) Konica TC bodies don't have great build quality, of course.

I've recently acquired a Minolta 35mm 2.8 and that seems better than the Zuiko, too. Paid about $39 for that one. I really like the Minolta bodies -- XE and XD series in particular.

 

[Field]

Yeah I know the TC build quality is not good. There are better bodies but then again at the same time I can replace it at any time.

35mm is more appealing but I am certain on a bit of a budget for the time being.

Minolta lenses seem to be consistent. The 45mm, while longer than I want, is like silly sharp. Konica's are actually about 42-43mm so the difference really isn't there. Although a Minolta 35 2.8 could be a good choice.

And seriously, the Olympus 35mm 2.8 I looked through wasn't up to quality with any other SLR lens I have looked through. I even stopped it down with the preview and it was still JUNK.

I looked at Pentax but I love auto exposure too. They seem to be difficult to find a body that you really want. It seems like Pentax made good glass but after electronics came into the scene they totally flopped with anyone but the bird watchers.

 

[redisburning]

field, since Im already sending you something, would you like to test my OM 35/2.8 on your camera for a week? it's a late MC and even though the focus ring grip is loose it's fine mechanically. you can just mail it back when you're done if you like.

 

[whitecat]

While there is some good OM glass, look into the Zeiss line if affordable, vast difference.

 

[David Hughes]

Reality

Reality

Hi,

When you count those against and those in favour of the lens, don't count those who don't own one; haven't even taken a photo using one and who think a second-hand one looked at in a shop is a true test of a lens.

But do count those who own one, even second-hand.

I keep mentioning "second-hand" as a reminder that we are not talking about brand new ones out of the box. Lots of second-hand stuff is rubbish (even Leicas, Nikons, Canons and so on) but not because it was designed and made that way. Most is rubbish because the owners neglected them, dropped them or broke them in some other way.

There's a long tradition of selling lenses that have been ruined but not mentioning it. Plus people go on forums to moan mainly. It's a poor place to start if you want to know what the lenses are like.

Regards, David

 

[shadowfox]

And seriously, the Olympus 35mm 2.8 I looked through wasn't up to quality with any other SLR lens I have looked through. I even stopped it down with the preview and it was still JUNK.

Sigh...

Zuiko 35/2.8 at f/2.8.

Maybe this is JUNK to you. But I don't know unless you post a picture too...

 

[Field]

That one looks better than what I looked through. The one I looked through looked dull all over wide open, when focused, and dull when stopped down. The resolution wasn't much more impressive than plastic lenses.

Perhaps it is more a function of quality control with the 35mm focal length, for Olympus.

 

[redisburning]

Will,

what Zuiko prime do you think is worse than 35mm f2.8?

I dont think it's garbage, but it's certainly MY weakest zuiko.