Oly OM-2n or 2sp...?

ishpop said:
What am I missing between a OM1n and an OM2n?
Click to expand...

Ability to use aperture priority, electronic shutter, off-the-film metering, straightforward flash use (even multi-flash setups), the ability for the auto (AV) mode to use very long exposures where needed (approx 3 minutes, bearing in mind reciprocity failure) are features of the OM2n

The OM1 is purely mechanical and can be used without batteries. Both are lovely cameras to use.
 
I also have both the OM 2n and 2sp and I almost never use the OM 2sp.

It feels less good (very subjective) but also has a dimmer viewfinder (due to the double mirror), makes more noise and is ergonomically less nice. Plus it drains the batteries much faster even when it is not used (only setting to B will help some but not much). It is also irrepairable if something breaks down as the circuits can not be had anymore.

So all in all I would go for the OM 2n (which is my favorite OM camera next to the OM 1n and the OM4ti).

Good luck with the choice.
 
HuubL said:
I got the OM-2n, but, without a lens. What should I look for...?
Click to expand...

What focal length do you want? If you want a 50, you can get an f1.8 or f1.4 model. There's also a 50mm f1.2 but it is expensive and somewhat rare. The 1.4 and 1.8 models were each made in several versions as the OM-system matured. The latest version of each is the best.

For the f1.8, look for one that has "made in japan" written on the nameplate around the front element. It has to say made in japan in lowercase letters. earlier ones just said Japan, and others had the made-in label on the bottom of the lens barrel near the mount. The "made in japan" version (all were made in Japan, I'm refering to the one that says it around the front) is sharp even wide open. It does, however, have the ugliest bokeh of any lens I have ever used. I have 3 of them and I never use them. Saving grace is it is cheap, $20 usually for the good version, and is very sharp. If you never shoot with out of focus backgrounds it is perfect.

For the f1.4, look for one with a serial number higher than 1,100,000. I have used a couple of earlier ones and this is by far the sharpest one, especially wide open. Stopped down, the earlier models are just as good. It has a lot nicer bokeh than the f1.8. Costs more though, typically about $80 on ebay.
 
Thanks Chris. But heck, I was too impatient and before I read your message just got a mint looking 1.8 50 lens from Ebay for what I think was a good price (17.10 euro). Unfortunately, it does not have the "Made in Japan" marking around the front lens. Just "Olympus OM-system F.Zuiko Auto-S". I'm pretty well versed in Canon FD and Leica Ms, but I'm new to the OM system and never realized there were different versions of these lenses. So, was this a bad buy? I'm eager to put a lens on and do some shooting, so the 17 euros isn't a big loss, even when this type is a dog. I would also like a wide angle lens; 35 or 28mm. Any opinions about that?
 
HuubL said:
Thanks Chris. But heck, I was too impatient and before I read your message just got a mint looking 1.8 50 lens from Ebay for what I think was a good price (17.10 euro). Unfortunately, it does not have the "Made in Japan" marking around the front lens. Just "Olympus OM-system F.Zuiko Auto-S". I'm pretty well versed in Canon FD and Leica Ms, but I'm new to the OM system and never realized there were different versions of these lenses. So, was this a bad buy? I'm eager to put a lens on and do some shooting, so the 17 euros isn't a big loss, even when this type is a dog. I would also like a wide angle lens; 35 or 28mm. Any opinions about that?
Click to expand...

It isn't a dog, all the 50/1.8 Zuiko's were good. The latest one is better wide open than the earlier ones, that's all. As cheap as they are, you can always pick up the newer one and compare it. Is yours a 'silvernose' or an all black lens? The very earliest OM lenses have a silver ring on the very front of the lens, in the late 1970s they began making the lenses all black. The one marked F.Zuiko was made in both silvernose and black versions. Both versions are single coated, not multicoated. The two latest versions (one marked MC and the last version, the made in japan version). I have not shot the F.Zuiko version myself but I have a friend who prefers the silvernose lenses because they are lower in contrast than the later lenses.
 
It's a "black nose" nr. 1265610 and it comes with the original front and back caps. I'll keep my eyes open for a later version. At these prices you can afford a couple of each ;) What about the wide angles?
 
HuubL said:
Thanks Chris. But heck, I was too impatient and before I read your message just got a mint looking 1.8 50 lens from Ebay for what I think was a good price (17.10 euro). Unfortunately, it does not have the "Made in Japan" marking around the front lens. Just "Olympus OM-system F.Zuiko Auto-S". I'm pretty well versed in Canon FD and Leica Ms, but I'm new to the OM system and never realized there were different versions of these lenses. So, was this a bad buy? I'm eager to put a lens on and do some shooting, so the 17 euros isn't a big loss, even when this type is a dog. I would also like a wide angle lens; 35 or 28mm. Any opinions about that?
Click to expand...

Forgot to tell you about wide angles.

There were three 35mm OM lenses. The 35/2.8 is the most common and sells for about $50-$75. It is sharp and VERY small. Uses the same lens hood as the 50mm Zuikos and the same 49mm filter size.

The 35mm f2 is bigger, has nicer bokeh, and is expensive. $200-$300 usually.

There is a 35mm f2.8 shift lens too, but it is very expensive used, about $600. I've never used it.

For 28mm I have two of the f2.8 version, which is tiny, very sharp, and uses 49mm filters like the many other Zuikos. There is a 28/2 that is expensive and big like the 35/2. I have not used the f2 version but it is said to be good.

If you like wider, the 24mm f2.8 Zuiko is an incredibly sharp lens that is used by a lot of Canon digital users because it blows away Canon's 24/2.8 lens. I like mine, I think it is sharper by a small amount than my Nikon AF-24/2.8. The 24/2.8 Zuiko is about $175-$200 and also uses 49mm filters. There is a very expensive, big, f2 version too but I haven't used it.

For longer lenses, the 85mm f2 is a good lens but overpriced at $300+. I have one I got on Craigslist for $50 a couple yrs ago. I like the 100mm f2.8 better as a portrait lens or short tele. It is sharper than the 85, smaller, and has slightly smoother bokeh. Both the 85 and the 100 use 49mm filters. There is a 100/2 and a 90/2-macro lens too but both typically sell for $1000 each and are both extremely large.

There is also a 50mm f3,5 macro that is very good and a 50mm f2 Macro that is actually better as a normal 50 than as a macro lens. It is beleived by some to be the sharpest 50mm lens ever made when used at normal distances. I have one and it is incredible! I rarely use it though because it is HUGE and doesn't balance well on the small OM bodies. It is also hard to focus at normal distances.
 
Oh I forgot on 28mm, there is a 28mm f3.5 Zuiko also but it has a poor reputation. I have not tried it. I'd go for the f2.8, which doesn't cost much more ($80-$100 for the 2.8 compared to $50-$70 for the 3.5). I know the 2.8 is good

The 3.5 was one of the early designs and was replaced by the 2.8 in the early 1980s.
 
I love the OM system, it was how I got my start in photography. My father had an OM-G (OM-20 in Europe), an inexpensive amateur model. I learned to use it when I was 8 or 9 years old and he got me one like it when I was 11. Mine got broken in a car accident when I was 16, so I shoot with an OM-4T now.
 
Chris, many thanks again on this comprehensive list of lens characteristics. I'm going to bookmark this thread for later use. I've played around with the OM-2 a little. I got it for free and had the choice between the OM-2 or the OM-2SP. The latter was in black, but after handling it a bit it felt more plasticy than the OM-2. This, together with the earlier input in this thread made me pick the OM-2. Unfortunately, I didn't get the 50mm F3.5 macro lens that was on the SP, so therefore my bold ;) ebay buy. However, I also got a data back, a #12 focusing screen and a flash connector thingy + dedicated flash cable (not the shoe). The camera looks great and I love the feel of it. Being a Canon user, I have to get used to the small size though. After the 50 arrives I'll try it out for real and when the results are good, I'll start hunting for a 28 or 24.
 
HuubL said:
Chris, many thanks again on this comprehensive list of lens characteristics. I'm going to bookmark this thread for later use. I've played around with the OM-2 a little. I got it for free and had the choice between the OM-2 or the OM-2SP. The latter was in black, but after handling it a bit it felt more plasticy than the OM-2. This, together with the earlier input in this thread made me pick the OM-2. Unfortunately, I didn't get the 50mm F3.5 macro lens that was on the SP, so therefore my bold ;) ebay buy. However, I also got a data back, a #12 focusing screen and a flash connector thingy + dedicated flash cable (not the shoe). The camera looks great and I love the feel of it. Being a Canon user, I have to get used to the small size though. After the 50 arrives I'll try it out for real and when the results are good, I'll start hunting for a 28 or 24.
Click to expand...

Glad I could help. Like I said, I love the OM system. I've shot with several other systems, including Nikon and Minolta, and I keep going back to my OM stuff. It is too bad you didn't get the macro lens, its worth $130. The 2sp bodies were all black, they didn't do a silver version of it, but as others said they tend to drain batteries and Olympus never fixed the problem. The original OM-4 did the same thing, but a lot of OM-4 bodies have had their electronics updated by Olympus to fix it, and all of the later OM-4T bodies had the no-drain electronics.

The system is addictive, we call ourselves Zuikoholics! You don't want the number 12 screen though! It is a special screen for microscope photography, it is perfectly clear and does not show focus (everything looks sharp no matter if it is focused or not). The standard screen is the number 13, which has a split image surrounded by microprisms. The Number 4 screen (all matte) and number 1 screen (the center spot is all microprisms, no split image) are also popular. If you want a 1-13 and can't find one cheap, I have one I can send you. I have a couple of them that have been given to me. Here in the USA they're common and usually sell for less than $10. I've heard that the 12 screen is rare, you might sell it on ebay and get some money from it from a collector.
 
I'd agree with all that Chriscrawfordphoto has said about Zuiko lenses - it's an excellent appraisal of the line. Just a couple of extra thoughts from me...

I have tried the 24/2 (I got one with a kit of OM stuff I bought), but I wasn't over-impressed. It's a good enough lens, but it didn't seem to have the sharpness or contrast of the 24/2.8 (which is quite superb, and one I use a lot - it's one of the stars of the range).

Another of my favourite lenses is an old silvernose 50/1.4. It's not as sharp and contrasty as the late 50/1.8, but I just love the look it gives with B&W. The 50/1.8, though, is really one of the star bargains out there in the world of lenses - it's up with the best ever 50s, and only costs pennies.

I also love the 85/2. I have one I only bought recently, but I've already shot quite a few rolls with it and I love the look. My first thoughts are that it's a bit less contrasty than most of the multi-coated Zuiko lenses and has a look that's not dissimilar to the 50/1.4 silvernose. I haven't got any colour results from it yet. I've actually wanted one of these for ages but have never been prepared to pay the usual price - they fetch a lot because they're in short supply and high demand. But I saw this one with a 'Buy it now' price of approx $190, and snapped it up.

The 100/2.8 is also a very good one, and is the short tele I've been using for quite some time (while watching the 85s pass me by), but its field of view seems a bit tight for my kind of shooting.

If you want a cheap tele, the 135/3.5 is a perfectly good lens and they sell for very low prices - it was a very popular lens and there are lots of them out there.

Incidentally, I noticed a 35/2 on the famous auction site last week, but I didn't pay too much attention because I expected it to go for more than $200 and I don't have much cash for photo gear at the moment. It went for just $110 - bought by a dealer who's now trying to resell it at $200. I haven't quite finished kicking myself.

Hope you enjoy the OM gear.
 
Last edited:
Well done the OM2S is a monster battery eater
I like the 24mm f2.8 and 100mm f2.8 ... all small and perfectly formed.
Never liked flash much so i can't help there and longer lenses and I just don't get on well. Always lusted after a 21mm but never got one while i had the Olympus.
I wanted to suggest OM-1 but lots of people beat me to it :D
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Oh I forgot on 28mm, there is a 28mm f3.5 Zuiko also but it has a poor reputation. I have not tried it. I'd go for the f2.8, which doesn't cost much more ($80-$100 for the 2.8 compared to $50-$70 for the 3.5). I know the 2.8 is good

The 3.5 was one of the early designs and was replaced by the 2.8 in the early 1980s.
Click to expand...


I had a 28/3.5 as well as the 28/2.8. I never did extensive testing, but from casual use I couldn't tell much difference between the two, at least in terms of sharpness, colour rendition, contrast. So I sold the 28/3.5. It actually had a good reputation on the OM list, IIRC, but mebbe I am "dis-remembering" or the common wisdom has changed.

Anyway, I agree that the 28/2.8 is a very good lens, and even though I have a 35/2.8 (later version, not silver nose), I keep both. I also have a 24/2.8, it is very, VERY good, but I just don't get on with that focal length. (I also have a Tokina 24/2.8 in OM mount) If anyone is interested in either, PM/email me. I won't ever use 24mm unless I force myself to shoot with it constantly for several weeks or even months, and I'm not up for that right now.

It's funny, though ... I get along really well with the 21/2, even though it's wider than the 21. <shrug>
 
Yeah, the 300/4.5 (even though I'm not a tele guy) is cracker. It is sharp as hell, and surprisingly easy to handhold. At least it was when I was younger. :D
 
I had a 28/3.5 as well as the 28/2.8. I never did extensive testing, but from casual use I couldn't tell much difference between the two, at least in terms of sharpness, colour rendition, contrast. So I sold the 28/3.5. It actually had a good reputation on the OM list, IIRC, but mebbe I am "dis-remembering" or the common wisdom has changed.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, I heard from one source (can't remember where) that the 28/3.5 actually had the edge over the 28/2.8. I got a 28/3.5 very cheap (about $12 including a polarising filter), so I did some direct comparisons between it and my 28/2.8, duplicating shots of the same scenes in the same conditions (I don't do test charts, cos they're not what people shoot in real life).

And I really couldn't see any difference - so much so that if someone else chose a pair of shots, I couldn't identify which was which. Both of them gave very similar resolution and contrast, and both started to go a bit soft in the very corners -- oof areas also looked very pretty much the same.

So I sold the 3.5 for $30, and kept the polarising filter at an effective cost of -$18 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom