OM, I've become a Zuikoholic!

28/2 or 35/2? I am thinking that something other than 50mm (I have a 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 no other Zuikos) is in order.

Between the 28 and 35 my only ? is, which is optically better. I will use it indoors and close, speed is important. I can adjust for the difference in focal length.

So, I am really liking my OM1 and just can't get the 50/1.8 off it. I will round off the kit with a 100/2.8 at some point, but I need to go wider first.

What do you guys think?
 
My gut feeling is that the 28/2 is the higher-regarded lens of the two.

I've recently gotten myself a very nice copy of the 85/2. Beautiful rendering, even in weak lighting. Since I'm feeling rather ambitious, I'm now wondering if I should spring for the Macro 50/2 for the extra macro ability and glass (and sell the silvernose 50/1.4).
 
ferider said:
The 28/2 is smaller, has the same filter size as your 50/1.8 and is better optimized at close focus, Ralph.
Click to expand...

It also appears to be a little less expensive. I have been trying to read up a little this morning. I guess like other Zuikos the later MC versions are more preferred. Now to locate one.
 
the 28/2 beats the 35/2 in EVERY test I've ever seen.

I believe even the silver nosed 28/2s were MC lenses (all the ones Ive seen are marked MC).

the 28/2 is a nice lens and all but in the two years Ive owned it, I think Ive taken one decent picture with mine. of course, Ive probably exposed less than 20 frames with it:


a tree by redisburning, on Flickr

and then I guess this one isn't intolerable:

Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

on crop it can service for light macro duty:

Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

I do not like 28 but I dislike 35 even more. in the end, for normal shooting I always use 50 and other than that if I want a wide angle shot I want very wide, maybe 21 all the way down to 15, and even more rarely I want a tele.

actually if you want a telephoto for your OM and cant swing the 90/2 macro, the 90/2.5 Vivitar series 1 is a good lens. this is the only image I have from mine, I just struggle to use anything that isn't within 10mm of 50


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr
 
congrats!

if you have flickr, make sure you post to the flickr group for the lens. its a bit slow since the lens isnt the most common one out there you know.
 
I am on flickr and I just joined the group so I will post on it.
Funny I just got the Om-1 about a week ago and after speaking to you I am selling off the other lenses and I'm going to stick with the Macro.
The OM-1 is nice but now I'm thinking of picking up the OM-4Ti instead and selling off the OM-1, Winder etc. What do you think?
I figure if I really like it I will sell off my FM2N and Zeiss 50/1.4 to fund the purchase.
 
I wouldnt sell the OM-1 at all!

I use a 2SP because I have the 2-4 focusing screen. Before I got that, I used the OM-1. Between the two, I honestly prefer the OM-1 as a manual camera but the 2 series focusing screens are SO good I had to switch. It's incredible, it is easily the best focusing screen Ive ever used personally, so I put up with a bunch of unecessary but nice do-dads like spot metering and auto exposure.

I cant advise you on your Nikon. I have the 50/2 ZF makro-planar and the F3HP which I use along side the OM-2sp and the 50/2 zuiko macro. I like both and would not sell one for the other. The 50MP is that good, so I would tell you that it might be good to keep your Nikon kit, at least for a while.



I think these two combinations are just about as good as it gets if you like manual focus film cameras with electronic shutters.
 
I do have a mint F3/T that I also use and I also use the Zeiss 50/1.4 on it as well. I have 2 FM2 bodies so selling one off would't be that big of a deal. I use to own the Makro Planar you have and it was a beautiful lens but it never felt right in my hands so I sold it off actually here on RFF.
I'll see how it goes and who knows I may be posting up pics of a new camera soon.
I'm really looking for a small setup to carry around on trips since I travel a lot and the FM2 is perfect I rarely take the F3/T.
 
mllanos1111 said:
I am on flickr and I just joined the group so I will post on it.
Funny I just got the Om-1 about a week ago and after speaking to you I am selling off the other lenses and I'm going to stick with the Macro.
The OM-1 is nice but now I'm thinking of picking up the OM-4Ti instead and selling off the OM-1, Winder etc. What do you think?
I figure if I really like it I will sell off my FM2N and Zeiss 50/1.4 to fund the purchase.
Click to expand...
You'll regret selling the OM1. I know, I own these 2 cameras, the OM1 has a nice viewfinder and doesn't need batteries to function, besides the money you'll get from selling it isn't much help.;)
 
redisburning said:
I have the 50/2 ZF makro-planar and the F3HP which I use along side the OM-2sp and the 50/2 zuiko macro.
Click to expand...

I'm curious how the eyepoints and finders of both cameras compare. I know the F3HP is made for high eyepoint (so it's easy to see the whole screen for eyeglass wearers). I've also heard that the OM-3/4 have higher eyepoints, too, and can match the brightness of the OM-2 finders with the 2-series focusing screens.

I'm trying to decide on a 35mm film SLR. Olympus, Nikon, Minolta are the candidates, and I used to shoot on an old Canon FD system.

Thanks for any insights!
 
A Y said:
I'm curious how the eyepoints and finders of both cameras compare. I know the F3HP is made for high eyepoint (so it's easy to see the whole screen for eyeglass wearers). I've also heard that the OM-3/4 have higher eyepoints, too, and can match the brightness of the OM-2 finders with the 2-series focusing screens.

I'm trying to decide on a 35mm film SLR. Olympus, Nikon, Minolta are the candidates, and I used to shoot on an old Canon FD system.

Thanks for any insights!
Click to expand...

well I have 2 OM-2ns and an OM-2sp. the OM-2n will not accept my 2-4 screen. I think I have 1-1s in both of those and a 1-5 in my favorite OM-1 and and maybe a 1-1 in the backup.

I also wear glasses, I cant see more than about a foot without them.

yes, in terms of size, the OM-2n/1 is biggest, then 2sp, then F3HP. The screen I have in the F3HP is a red dot grid. It's ok. The 2-2 screen with a good lens (like the 50/2 macro) is like HDtv compared to EVERYTHING else. It's even better than using an M2 IMO. The F3 suffices.

I like the F3 as a camera plenty. The viewfinder is certainly acceptable and it's operations are fine. I do not like the lenses. I have the 55/3.5 and 55/2.8 and find each to be a bit worse than the OM 50/3.5 and 50/2.0.

But I didnt buy a Nikon camera to shoot Nikon lenses. Not this time anyway. I bought it SPECIFICALLY to shoot the 50 f2 Makro-Planar, which is all kinds of huge and sharp and so on.

The current line of Zeiss SLR lenses is really great, so I recommend that on a pro level Nikon body. The F3HP seems like the best choice to me. Oh yeah, that's why I have one.

After that I like OM. If you can spend up to get a series 2 screen and one of the really special lenses (21/2, 50/2, 90/2, etc) it's still cheaper than the Zeiss option and you have something really good.

I only shoot 50s, so maybe it's different outside of that. I neither know, nor care.

I'd rate the OM-2sp above the Nikon F3HP but the 50MP over the Zuiko macro. In the end, the lower price of the OM and the fact that you're "settling" for what is still one of the very, very, very best 50s ever made probably makes that the winner in my eyes.

If you want in for not much, maybe Pentax is the best bet? They have the best 50/1.4 and I dont think their system is modular so you just buy the best body you can find (MX, LX?) and one of those and they aren't very pricey.

Minolta is fine if you buy the 58/1.2 and can tolerate whatever camera you put it on. Ive had one of those too. Nice lens, I can live without mine and I like the OM50/1.2 just as much but I can use it with a good body.

YMMV. actually, it WILL vary.
 
Thanks very much for all of that great information! It sounds like there's really no wrong choice, and comes down to personal preferences and what compromises one's willing to live with.

I intend to shoot with a 50, 28, and maybe some kind of short telephoto in the future. I've decided I can live with a lower eyepoint, but would like a bright finder, and a spot meter if possible, hence the 2SP. Even from KEH, prices for EX quality stuff like the modest versions of each lens (50/1.8 and 28/2.8) are low enough to make this tempting.
 
if you want the modest OM lenses let me suggest the 28/3.5 and 50/3.5 as your lenses.

also, I wouldnt get a 3/4/2sp without budgeting in a 2 series screen. just my 2c.

it's been a while since we had some images, so here are some older 50/3.5 color (aka digital) shots. maybe they will convince you :)


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr


boss by redisburning, on Flickr

if you like to shoot your 50 at f5.6 or f8, it's really hard to do better than this.
 
Thanks for the pictures and recommendations. I can definitely live with a 28/3.5. A slow 50 as a walkaround lens is an intriguing idea --- I hadn't thought about that before! I am no bokeh-master, so I tend to shoot at smaller apertures in bright light.

A friend loaned me his F3 (normal finder) and an AI 50/1.4 for the weekend. He had one with the HP finder as well, and while the eyepoint was impressive, I think I like the slightly smaller finder, and the larger magnification. Or maybe I'll change my mind again ...

I forgot to mention my reason for doing this is to have a smaller, inconspicuous film system. I also shoot a 500C/M 'Blad and a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder, neither of which are inconspicuous, and I don't think I get along all too well with the Fuji.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom