Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
35/2 is one of my favorite lenses.
![]()
Beautiful light in that photograph! 🙂
35/2 is one of my favorite lenses.
![]()
I had an OM moment today - found a 50/1.8 lens for $2 at the local flea market. Dirty on the outside, clean as a whistle inside. 🙂
These frames do look interesting. Very contrasty, which creates a bold look to them. Some areas are overexposed, though. Did you push the film? I don't usually get that much contrast out of stock Neopan 400 shot at ISO 400.Olympus OM-4 & Zuiko 50/1.4 "silver nose", Fuji Neopan 400.
Helsingfors 2011-05.
According to the German website 'Olypedia', a screw-in rubber hood was made for the 24/2.0, but I suspect it to be as rare as all other Olympus wide angle lens shades.I finally got my hands on an OM 24 f2. Did Oly ever make a matching hood for it? I cannot find it mentioned anywhere, not even a picture.
According to the German website 'Olypedia', a screw-in rubber hood was made for the 24/2.0, but I suspect it to be as rare as all other Olympus wide angle lens shades.
Yes (I have one), but it is extremely hard to find. A good resource for what existed is at the Olympus SIF: http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~rwesson/esif/om-sif.htm. Go to the Lens Group / Hoods.I finally got my hands on an OM 24 f2. Did Oly ever make a matching hood for it? I cannot find it mentioned anywhere, not even a picture.
Yes (I have one), but it is extremely hard to find. A good resource for what existed is at the Olympus SIF: http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~rwesson/esif/om-sif.htm. Go to the Lens Group / Hoods.
35/2 is one of my favorite lenses.
![]()
These frames do look interesting. Very contrasty, which creates a bold look to them. Some areas are overexposed, though. Did you push the film? I don't usually get that much contrast out of stock Neopan 400 shot at ISO 400.
Man, what a dog of a lens, look at that fuzzy details and unsharp corner, no wonder it won't pass muster against those lens charts.
Will ... I'm so glad you've finally picked up on this. :angel:
My OM lenses, wide & normal:
Tokina 17/3.5
Zuiko 21/3.5
Zuiko 24/2.0
Zuiko 24/2.8
Zuiko 28/2.0
Zuiko 28/3.5
Zuiko 28/2.8
Zuiko 35/2.0
Zuiko 35/2.8
Zuiko 35/2.8
Zuiko 50/1.4
Zuiko 50/1.4
Zuiko 50/1.2
Zuiko 50/3.5 macro
Zuiko 55/1.2
As far as distortion, aberrations, and out-of-focus rendering, I do not see any differences between the lenses. (Someone with a trained eye probably can, though, so I've included one of the pairs of pictures that I took.)
35/2 is one of my favorite lenses.
I have recently acquired two 28mm lenses, a Leica Elmarit-M 28/2.8 Asperical, and an Olympus Zuiko 28/2.8. Just for my own amusement, over the past two days I have run comparisons of the
Olympus OM-2n with the Zuiko 28/2.8 and the
Leica M2 with the Elmarit-M 28/2.8 Asperical.
For film I used Solaris FG-Plus 400, expired (not the best quality film, kind of grainy).
I used the OM-2n to meter and take the first shot of each pair, then used the same shutter speed and aperture setting on the M2 to take a second shot.
Expired FG-Plus Solaris 400 was a poor choice for running a precise test, but in side-by-side comparisons, both in the prints and in the One Hour Photo Lab scans, I cannot distinguish much difference between the two lenses.
Perhaps the Elmarit-M picks up subtle tonal differences better; it is hard to see fine detail because of the film's grain. Color accuracy varied for both lenses and I would have to use a better film to say for certain if the Zuiko kept up with the Leica. It does appear that the Zuiko emphasised reds and browns more than the Leica, which is good for pictures of rusted cars and fire trucks, but not so good for fields of grass. As far as distortion, aberrations, and out-of-focus rendering, I do not see any differences between the lenses. (Someone with a trained eye probably can, though, so I've included one of the pairs of pictures that I took.)
Zuiko 28/2.8:
Rusted Plymouth in 28mm - Zuiko by sreed2006, on Flickr
Leica Elmarit-M 28/2.8 Aspherical:
Rusted Plymouth in 28mm - Leica by sreed2006, on Flickr