OM, I've become a Zuikoholic!

p.giannakis said:
The 35f2 is a nice lens. I have quite a few pictures taken with this lens on this thread.
Click to expand...

Pan you're almost always one of the main influences of my Olympus OM based spending!
The 35/f2 is an interesting lens - its got some pretty strong characteristics like for instance it's very flare resistant but doesn't like to be shot at f2 into backlight. It's also sharper at closer distances.

I've just spent an ungodly amount of money on the 40mm f2 Zuiko and was thinking I'd do a little comparison between the two lenses when it arrives, if anyone is interested.
 
Gavin, definitely interested in that comparison. I have those 2 lenses as well but won't take possession of the 40 until November because it was shipped to my daughter in California and I won't see her till then.
 
Last edited:
Always keep up with this thread. The OMs have always been my favourite. That said I bought a chrome OM1 and 50mm 1.4 ages ago and I’ve yet to use it (curse of digital I’m afraid).
Have considered selling it but I’ve some 35mm film in the fridge to get through, Cinestill, Portra etc.
Need a kick on the pants to get me back on the film trail.
Keep posting the great shots guys.
 
Just got a roll of Portra 400 scanned in time for the first round of the Zuiko 40mm f2 vs Zuiko 35mm f2 Battle!

The 35mm f2 is a minty, late serial (2000ish build) NMC coating lens that is correctly centred. The Zuiko 40mm f2 is likewise optically mint and correctly centred.
These test photos were shot with the same settings, and scanned/converted identically so any differences in colour or tone is likely down to the lens itself. They aren't sharpened or edited.

*click the link under the images for a full size version!

The 40mm f2 is first in each set, followed by the 35mm f2.
 
pyeh said:
Thank you, Gavin. That's terrific. It seems to me, looking quickly at them, that the 40/2 is slightly sharper than the 35/2 at f2.
Click to expand...

No worries! I've searched the internet far and wide a number of times in the last decade trying to find a definitive comparison between the two lenses and never found anything at all besides rumours and Gary Reece's test charts which are basically useless, so I hope it helps someone else out!


My observations so far are that the 40mm f2 is a noticeably warmer and higher contrast rendering lens. In flat light it's slightly sharper at f2 than the 35mm f2.
In bright light or especially in backlit scenes, the 35mm's wide open sharpness drops dramatically and the rendering becomes hazy compared to the 40mm - which can be easily seen in the last example with the white chair.

These differences are most noticeable in the full size links - it seems RFF's image compression is limiting quality in the posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom