OM, I've become a Zuikoholic!

Keith said:
Ten quid! 😱 What a bargain!

I'm currently down to three OM bodies ... a black OM-1, a black OM-2 and a silver OM-2.

Have you considered an OM-1 Vicky? ... they have a sort of unique purity to them IMO.
Click to expand...

It was a bargain! I have considered the OM1 (or preferably a 1n), and will likely get one in the future. I decided to focus on getting another 2n because that way the bodies are interchangeable and I'm not having to remember whether I'm using the 2 or the 1, just grab from the hip and shoot, this was the reason for the 2nd body, so I'm not faffing about missing shots. The 28mm is almost permanent on my OM2n, so when I need a 50, I have often been missing shots or taking shots so close that the poor peeps in them feel a bit invaded! (About to do some more of this down a farmer's market, they're usually willing until they realise how close I am getting haha!)

So one day, an OM1n is definitely on the cards, these are super cameras and hopefully colour film will keep going for a while, until that day, I have no reason to go digital, to me these cameras are perfection. Simple, small, robust, not all knobs and winders and buttons and dials, the reason I ended up hating my EOS 3 despite it being one heck of a camera.

Just to add, I'll keep shooting them even when colour film is dead, whenever that is, black and white is still something I love! Nothing sweeter than bundling a roll of FP4 or Tri X into one of these things time to time!

Vicky
 
Last edited:
I like my silvernose 85/2.

This was wide open using the multi spot metering on the OM4. Converted Porta 160C f2 @ 1/30th

5440866633_2be773e819_b.jpg
[/url] Almost..[now] One by transalper, on Flickr[/IMG]
 
Last edited:
My obligatory cat picture of my late, beloved cat Trixie. She was actually terminally ill when the picture was taken. Unfortunately, my cheap flatbed scanner doesn't do a great job of scanning prints -- the image is a bit fuzzy and washed out compared to the 8 x 12 inch print. If I recall correctly, I used a Zuiko 35mm f2.0 close to wide open.
SCAN00000001.jpg
 
big zuikoholic here.

started out with an om-1 which was given to me, and now use an om-2sp. while the om-1 feels like a better camera, I have never failed to be impressed by the meter on the om-2sp.

I recently stepped into the world of rangefinders with the purchase of a Konica Auto S2, but Im still an olympus guy at heart.

In my extremely unexperienced opinion, olympus made one of, if not THE, finest 35mm systems.
 
Last edited:
redisburning said:
big zuikoholic here.

started out with an om-1 which was given to me, and now use an om-2sp. while the om-1 feels like a better camera, I have never failed to be impressed by the meter on the om-2sp.

I recently stepped into the world of rangefinders with the purchase of a Konica Auto S2, but Im still an olympus guy at heart.

In my extremely unexperienced opinion, olympus made one of, if not THE, finest 35mm systems.
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone in this thread will argue about that! My occasional fling with Nikon SLR's only ever succeeds in sending me back to my OM's with new found admiration! 🙂
 
julescasablancas said:
OM2n and 24mm f2
The color I get from this lens is awesome
Click to expand...

I've never shot colour through the 24mm f/2.0, but I've shot countless rolls of monochrome with it. Exceptionally pleasant lens (although I've since switched to the 21mm) .
Some samples from my (1976 vintage, silver-nosed, beat-up) copy of the 24mm:


It__s_in_your_hands_by_philosomatographer.jpg

(Ilford Delta 3200, OM-1n, 24mm at f/2.0, 8x10in analogue print)

Mutual_Care_by_philosomatographer.jpg

(Ilford FP4+, OM-1n, 24mm at f/5.6, 8x10in analogue print)


Runway_Routine_by_philosomatographer.jpg

(Ilford FP4+, OM-2n, 24mm at f/5.6, directly scanned - hence the crappy grain)

​
 
mob81 said:
This was with the 35mm F2.8 (Wide Open)
Click to expand...

Mohammed, from what I can see on the small web shot, the lens looks extraordinarily good for shooting it wide open! Certainly the 21mm and 24mm f/2 lenses don't look this good in the corners when shot at or near wide open (lots of coma), and they are "legendary".

Makes me think a good copy of the 35mm f/2.8 is worth a look...
 
philosomatographer said:
I've never shot colour through the 24mm f/2.0, but I've shot countless rolls of monochrome with it. Exceptionally pleasant lens (although I've since switched to the 21mm) .
Some samples from my (1976 vintage, silver-nosed, beat-up) copy of the 24mm:
Click to expand...

I wanted to get the 21mm f2 but it is still too expensive..
My version of 24mm is the older one with chrome nose.
 
OM. After years and years of having shot only Nikon and Leica R film SLRs, I am now absolutely in love with an OM4. Looking forward to buy some Zuiko glass, as I have just a 50/1.4.
For the knowledgeable Zuikoholics here, is the 35/2 a lot better lens than the 35/2.8? The 35/2 is hard to find where I live...
Thanks in advance.
 
Fuchs said:
For the knowledgeable Zuikoholics here, is the 35/2 a lot better lens than the 35/2.8? The 35/2 is hard to find where I live...
Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

No. I had a 35/2.8 years ago and it was a very good lens, but was stolen. I now have a 35/2.0. Bigger, heavier, brighter viewfinder image, and very good image quality as well, but certainly not "much better" than the 2.8. Many people here in fact really don't like the 35/2.0 and will say the 35/2.8 is better and some will say much better. The old Modern Photo tests rated the 35/2.0 pretty highly, but many here say their personal experience with the lens is subpar, possibly due to the age and condition of a decades old lens. My example is very good (and in essentially mint quality), but I would say it's a toss-up as to whether the 35/2.0 or 35/2.8 has better image quality. With older equipment like OM stuff, it all depends on the condition of the individual lenses at issue and how their tolerances (and deviations therefrom) work with the tolerances (and deviation) of your particular camera.

I suspect (and everyone feel free to chime in if you disagree) that the performance of many an older camera-lens combo can be improved by having them serviced by a skilled camera tech, including having the lens alignment checked (and adjusted as necessary) and checking the focusing accuracy of the camera body (including the mirror position/angle). Of course, in many cases the perceived deficiencies in the performance of a lens lies purely with the photographer in the form of focusing errors, camera shake, flat lighting, etc. Also, too many people insist on making unfair comparisons of the performance of different lenses based on shots taken of different subjects or under different condtions. For example, you can't make a fair comparison involving different lighting (for example flash versus overcast natural light), different subject matter magnification, different contrast subjects, subject matter that is subject to any motion, where different shutter speeds are used, etc. The performance of a lens is essentially in the eyes of the beholder -- one should pay less attention to trying to figure out which lens is better and spend more time taking photographs.

I'll stop blabbing now . . .
 
Last edited:
I have an early very well used 35mm f2 and I must say it's hardly a stellar lens. A bit soft at f2 and pretty low contrast ... I still like it though! 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom