OM, I've become a Zuikoholic!

Om2 50/1.4

p885341919.jpg


Louvre - Paris

p668133936.jpg


p720961708.jpg


p558816785.jpg


Cheers - John
 
Found an OM-1 & 50mm f/1.8 combo at Calumet for about $80, at that price who could resist?

Tri-X at 640 in HC-110:





 
Last edited:
shadowfox said:
Don't let anyone tell you that you don't shoot well!
You have a good eye for interesting compositions.
Keep on.
Click to expand...

thanks, your comment means a lot. :eek:

Trius said:
That's the 18? Wow.
Click to expand...

yeah, i really like it. :) what little distortion it has is nice. it's going to take a lot of using it to get use to the angle, though. i have to get extremely close to things to fill the frame with them, which can be tough.

11-12-11_07sm.jpg


i was inches from the bumper of this car and would have had to lean over the hood to fill the frame with it more. refrained from doing so as its owner may have come at any moment. :rolleyes:
 
Well, I bought an inexpensive 4T which arrived last night. It is a nice looking camera. The viewfinder is nice and bright, much nicer than the OM 1 I found over the summer. I also like the focusing aides in the middle of the screen better than those in my FM3a. The diopter correction puts it a touch ahead of my ME Super I think, which also has a very nice finder. I need to read through the manual again, get confident with the spot meter, and run some film through it.

We shall see, but this looks promising.
 
Does anyone have a good comparison report between the Zuiko 35mm/2.0 and the 40/2.0 ?

I'm very interested to learn the advantages of each against the other (beyond physical size).

Thanks, Bill
 
I have been reading this thread over the past few days... Yes, there is a comparison I think already posted. Somewhere around page 30?;)
 
I just checked 23 to 33 and didn't see it, but I swear somewhere someone posted some results from an old comparison of these lenses.
 
wblynch said:
Does anyone have a good comparison report between the Zuiko 35mm/2.0 and the 40/2.0 ?

I'm very interested to learn the advantages of each against the other (beyond physical size).

Thanks, Bill
Click to expand...

The difference is in the amount you will have to pay for them. Circa £250 for the 35/f2; circa £750 for the 40/f2; or thereabouts. The 40/f2 is very small but that's about it; I doubt you or anyone else would be able to spot the difference in a 'blind' comparison.
 
Thanks. That's insane money for those lenses. From what I've read from owners, the 35/2 is not noticeably different from or better than the 2.8. And the fov from a 50 to the 40 just can't justify the price. I guess "Leica like" collector madness has hit a few Zuikos.

I will continue to be happy with the ones I already have. They may be common, but I love them.
 
if youll give me 750 pounds for a 40/2 I will track down the guy I sold mine too and beat him to get it back.

I was very satisfied to let it go and it was not nearly that much. Worst case you can go on KEH and grab one for 600 USD.

as far as the lens itself goes, it's very easy to get a good look out of that lens. I would spend that kind of money on one of the macros though, personally.
 
The reason I would want a 35/2 is the extra stop. For some of the shooting I do, it would make a difference.

As for the 40/2, it's the pancake design. On an OM it is extremely compact, making the rig even more M-like. It's a good performer, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom