OM, I've become a Zuikoholic!

shadowfox said:
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.


:D
Just joking...
Finally!! a shot that showcases the quality of the lens. Please, post more.

For future Zuikoaholics, do not make the mistake of dismissing this lens just because some opinions on the 'net.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I think Gary Reese's tests had a lot to do with the poor reputation of this lens. Fortunately, this reputation has also made it one of the more affordable of the f/2 Zuikos. The OM Lens Handbook from 1985 features a lot of photographs taken with the 35/2, which should be praise enough.
 
5908156427_183003b695_b.jpg

* A hundred years old Kodak Tri-X 400. Well... actually 27 years past expiration. Rodinal 1+50. Zuiko 135/2.8.
 
Someone asked earlier about a hood for the 24/2...I believe Konica made a lens hood for their 24mm lens that fits the Zuiko 24/2 perfectly. Fairly common, fairly cheap.

Hama used to make a plastic generic hood that fit the 24/2 as well, and had a cap for the hood. That is now nearly impossible to find.
 
nikku said:
Thanks! I think Gary Reese's tests had a lot to do with the poor reputation of this lens. Fortunately, this reputation has also made it one of the more affordable of the f/2 Zuikos. The OM Lens Handbook from 1985 features a lot of photographs taken with the 35/2, which should be praise enough.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm the odd man out in that I like both Gary's tests and my 35/2 (nice photo, Nikku).

Gary put a lot of effort in his tests, and what you put in them is a matter of interpretation. And has nothing to do with internet "reputation", which mostly consists of people repeating hear-say over and over again.

For example, the highly "reputed" 40/2 vs the 35/2, per Gary:


Olympus 40mm f/2.0 Zuiko (multi-coated)
OM-4T with mirror and diaphragm prefire, different sample from above
OM-1 test
Vignetting = B @ f/2, A- @ f/2.8, A thereafter
Distortion = none
Aperture Center Corner
f/2 C+ C-
f/2.8 B+ C
f/4 A- B
f/5.6 B B+
f/8 A- A
f/11 A A
f/16 A A-
Notes: Moderately low contrast in center and low contrast in corners at f/2; moderate contrast in center and moderately low in corners at f/2.8; moderately high contrast in center and moderate contrast in corners at f/4; moderately high contrast in center and corners at f/16; high contrast in center and corners at f/11; very high contrast in center and corners at f/8.

Olympus 35mm f/2.0 Zuiko (multi-coated)
OM-4 with mirror @and diaphragm prefire (sample 3 - minty)
Vignetting = B- @ f/2, A- @ f/2.8, A @ f/4
Distortion = slight barrel
Aperture Center Corner
f/2.0 A- C
f/2.8 A C+
f/4 A- B-
f/5.6 A- B
f/8 A A
f/11 A- A-
f/16 B+ B+
Notes: Moderately high contrast in center and moderately low in corner at f/2 and f/2.8; moderately high contrast in center and moderate in corner at f/4 and f/5.6; moderately high contrast in corner and center at f/8 to f/16.
Click to expand...

Basically this 35/2 was better than that 40/2 throughout the aperture range.

Yeah - they are both much softer in the corners than in the center at f2. So are my Summicrons.

Just data; the more the better; I'll take measurements like Gary's over a 600x400 web post any time. In particular if I don't know about medium, development and scanning process.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
I was having a browse of this site and was reminded once more of why the OM-1 is such a great camera ... the interview with Maitani about the OM-1 is great!

When someone questioned the lack of a shutter locking switch leading to accidental exposures he expressed that the risk of the odd accidental triggering was preferable to missing a photo oppportunity because the camera wasn't ready!

What a guy ... such a god! :D

Finally, the OM series has no shutter lock button. I know there are designers opposed to this, so what was the reason for the decision?

YM: When the camera went on sale, the camera magazines pointed this out and severely criticized it. The counter-argument I wrote then was that you might waste a frame because there's no shutter lock, but in my experience sometimes you don't get two chances to take a photo. You miss that unexpected photo opportunity. Whatever camera I'm carrying, I prefer to have the shutter ready to fire immediately. For the same reason, I also shortened the shutter timelag. More than anything else, a camera is for capturing that "moment."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
nikku said:
Someone asked earlier about a hood for the 24/2...I believe Konica made a lens hood for their 24mm lens that fits the Zuiko 24/2 perfectly. Fairly common, fairly cheap.

Hama used to make a plastic generic hood that fit the 24/2 as well, and had a cap for the hood. That is now nearly impossible to find.
Click to expand...


I have a (the?) Konica 24 lens hood and it fits the Zuiko 24/2 very well.
 

Attachments

  • 24.jpg
    24.jpg
    32.1 KB · Views: 0
ferider said:
I guess I'm the odd man out in that I like both Gary's tests and my 35/2 (nice photo, Nikku).

Gary put a lot of effort in his tests, and what you put in them is a matter of interpretation. And has nothing to do with internet "reputation", which mostly consists of people repeating hear-say over and over again.

For example, the highly "reputed" 40/2 vs the 35/2, per Gary:



Basically this 35/2 was better than that 40/2 throughout the aperture range.

Yeah - they are both much softer in the corners than in the center at f2. So are my Summicrons.

Just data; the more the better; I'll take measurements like Gary's over a 600x400 web post any time. In particular if I don't know about medium, development and scanning process.

Roland.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to denigrate Gary's lens tests; on the contrary, I still reference them. However, there is no substitute for actually using a piece of equipment. I know, because I used to be one of the those people who spoke poorly of the 35/2 without actually using it.
 
What the OM2 was made for ....

What the OM2 was made for ....

With Zuiko 50/1.4 and Kiron 28/2 on Velvia 50. Would appreciate you letting me know which one you like best :)

Scan-110708-0020-XL.jpg


Scan-110708-0021-XL.jpg


Scan-110708-0023-XL.jpg


Scan-110708-0033-XL.jpg


Cheers,

Roland.
 
Taken with my recently repaired OM2n which seems to be firing on all cylinders again (or should that be all shutter speeds?! :))

Anyway, boring old Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 with hood, Made in Japan variant and some Portra 160 shot at f/2.8 1/60th. The New Portra 160 is *amazing*, I already vastly prefer it over Portra 160NC (which I loved a vast amount itself):


Via dell'Amore, Pienza, Toscana by Vicky Lamburn, on Flickr
 
Aurelius said:
I have a (the?) Konica 24 lens hood and it fits the Zuiko 24/2 very well.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that advice. In the meantime I also found a screw-on metal hood for Minolta 24mm f/2.8 lens that fits the Zuiko 24mm f/2. Hope that helps someone in the future.

Funny how the filter diameter of f/2.8 lenses of other brand/ makes fits the Zuiko f/2s.:D

24mm_hood-1.jpg


24mm_hood-2.jpg
 
Roland - #1! looks like she's pushing away a feather duster! My fav.
# 3 tells a great story too and I like how you're using the great capacity of the OM2 meter (and follows another useful post in this thread that made me buy an OM2 over 2n).
 
Will - I know it's a page back - but that crane just launching into flight is ethereally beautiful through the grain.. Stunning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom