aeolist
Member
are they any good?
I've read a lot about OM lenses. There's a lot of praise about the 28/3.5 and 28/2.0 (I think the 2.8 is no different by oh so many 28/2.8 lenses that go around), the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4, the 100's, the 85 (especially in this forum, other forums tend to vote on the 100/2.8) and the wider than 28 lenses.
I have rarely - if ever - read anything about the two 35 mm lenses. Maybe a few comments calling them "mediocre" here and there. They both seem to be of older design ('70s zuiko?) - especially since the 35/2.0 features the bigger 55mm thread, while they did manage to construct the 28/2.0 using the 49mm thread.
Does anybody have any experience to share?
My interest lies in the fact that I currently own the 28/3.5, 50/1.4 and 50/1.8. Going out and using both a 28 and a 50 is inconvinient at times and i often find myself wanting something wider than a 50, but not so wide as a 28.
I've read a lot about OM lenses. There's a lot of praise about the 28/3.5 and 28/2.0 (I think the 2.8 is no different by oh so many 28/2.8 lenses that go around), the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4, the 100's, the 85 (especially in this forum, other forums tend to vote on the 100/2.8) and the wider than 28 lenses.
I have rarely - if ever - read anything about the two 35 mm lenses. Maybe a few comments calling them "mediocre" here and there. They both seem to be of older design ('70s zuiko?) - especially since the 35/2.0 features the bigger 55mm thread, while they did manage to construct the 28/2.0 using the 49mm thread.
Does anybody have any experience to share?
My interest lies in the fact that I currently own the 28/3.5, 50/1.4 and 50/1.8. Going out and using both a 28 and a 50 is inconvinient at times and i often find myself wanting something wider than a 50, but not so wide as a 28.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I have had a few copies of the 35/2.8, and like it a lot. Sharp enough, good colour and contrast. Will should pop up any second now about the 35/2.0. It is at least as good, but as you say, 55mm thread instead of 49. I don't think that's because it's older, just the choices the designers had to make.
For years a 35/2.8 was my standard lens, while my F.Zuiko silver nose 50/1.8 languished.
For years a 35/2.8 was my standard lens, while my F.Zuiko silver nose 50/1.8 languished.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I have one of each. They're ok, but neither is a best in class lens. Olympus did better in my opinion with their 28mm and 50mm lenses. The 35 seemed to be an afterthought. I have a Pentax screwmount 35mm f3.5 that is MUCH sharper than either Zuiko.
nikku
Well-known
Agreed w/ Chris. Both are unremarkable. For less than the cost of an OMZ 35/2, you could get a non ai Nikkor-O 35mm f2 and a Nikkormat FTn. The Nikkor-O is a brilliant lens, it is soft wide open but sharpens up quickly by f2.8 and is razor sharp by f4. The bokeh and rendering of the lens is nothing short of amazing, with a similar look to a lot of 35mm rangefinder lenses of similar vintage. This lens is really the only reason I have kept my Nikkormat.
I also prefer the look of the Zuiko 35/2.8 in the XA. Yeah it vignettes, but it's sharp as a razor with a really unique look.
I'm probably the biggest OM fan around, but I think Olympus dropped the ball with the 35mm focal length for OM.
Richard Ross
Established
I've had two 35/2.8s (one silver-nose, one black) and both have been unremarkable. The 35mm end of my 35-105 Zuiko considerably outperforms both of them, certainly in terms of sharpness.
Igor.Burshteyn
Well-known
interesting how opinions differ.
I own 35mm f2.8, and find it as sharp as OM 50mm f1.8 - very sharp, in short.
I own 35mm f2.8, and find it as sharp as OM 50mm f1.8 - very sharp, in short.
aeolist
Member
so only Trius likes the lens? That's unfortunate.
Going to stick with my 28/3.5 and maybe try the 35/2.8 if i can borrow it from a friend/buy it cheaply. oh well
Trius, I thought that the 35/2.0 was introduced early in the om line, whereas the 28/2.0 came later on. But after checking mir, i am wrong, the 28 was introduced early on too. So i guess the designers chose to design a really good 28 (since they managed to squeeze a wider lens in 49mm), but skipped on the 35. an afterthought as chris mentions
nikku, it's a shame that nikon lenses can't be adapted to om :/
maybe we need a reverse leitax adapter
Going to stick with my 28/3.5 and maybe try the 35/2.8 if i can borrow it from a friend/buy it cheaply. oh well
Trius, I thought that the 35/2.0 was introduced early in the om line, whereas the 28/2.0 came later on. But after checking mir, i am wrong, the 28 was introduced early on too. So i guess the designers chose to design a really good 28 (since they managed to squeeze a wider lens in 49mm), but skipped on the 35. an afterthought as chris mentions
nikku, it's a shame that nikon lenses can't be adapted to om :/
maybe we need a reverse leitax adapter
nikku
Well-known
nikku, it's a shame that nikon lenses can't be adapted to om :/
maybe we need a reverse leitax adapter
It is a shame, Gary Reese's lens tests back up my assertions, as do Bjorn's lens evaluations.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Well, I've never been one to really get into sharpness, resolution, etc. If a a print LOOKS sharp when I enlarge it from the neg, or when I view a chrome through a loupe (and the photo is at least semi-successful,) I'm good.
Once I get back to Roch, I am, however, going to slap that puppy on an OM and let it ride for awhile, with some b&w. And I'll use it next summer when I do my Farewell to Kodachrome tour. Like I said, "sharp enough", and I enjoyed the colour and contrast. But maybe that's just nostalgia from a time when I was having so much fun with it stuck on an OM-1. And no one EVER accused me of being a Zuiko booster ... nah!
As far as the 35/2.0 goes, I suppose it could be an "afterthought" in terms of design effort, but then again, maybe there were reasonable choices made. I mean, my 21/2 is 55mm thread, and I don't think at all about why that is. Except that it probably is because they made a choice based on performance.
Once I get back to Roch, I am, however, going to slap that puppy on an OM and let it ride for awhile, with some b&w. And I'll use it next summer when I do my Farewell to Kodachrome tour. Like I said, "sharp enough", and I enjoyed the colour and contrast. But maybe that's just nostalgia from a time when I was having so much fun with it stuck on an OM-1. And no one EVER accused me of being a Zuiko booster ... nah!
As far as the 35/2.0 goes, I suppose it could be an "afterthought" in terms of design effort, but then again, maybe there were reasonable choices made. I mean, my 21/2 is 55mm thread, and I don't think at all about why that is. Except that it probably is because they made a choice based on performance.
ferider
Veteran
Here is what my 35/2 does:
http://ferider.smugmug.com/Technical/Lenses/Zuiko-OM-2835-f2/7493675_achAM
Qualitatively, I find most Zuikos that I have used (e.g., the 28/2) to behave like this. Beautiful bokeh, mellow contrast, optimized for highest resolution at f5.6 or so. Sharper close up than at infinity, wide open (quite a logical and useful optimization, I feel).
Roland.
http://ferider.smugmug.com/Technical/Lenses/Zuiko-OM-2835-f2/7493675_achAM
Qualitatively, I find most Zuikos that I have used (e.g., the 28/2) to behave like this. Beautiful bokeh, mellow contrast, optimized for highest resolution at f5.6 or so. Sharper close up than at infinity, wide open (quite a logical and useful optimization, I feel).
Roland.
Last edited:
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I have the Zuiko 35mm f2.8 and find it to be on par with my Canon FD 35mm f3.5 and below par my Rokkor 35mm f2.8 from the late 1960s.
The Zuiko 35mm f2.8 is a lack luster lens in my opinion.
The Zuiko 35mm f2.8 is a lack luster lens in my opinion.
Freakscene
Obscure member
I don't have any experience with the 2.8 but the 35/2 has a way of almost miraculously falling prey to diffraction artefacts stopped down past f8 and I found it flared easily.
Marty
Marty
Last edited:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Interesting. When I was "growing up" photographically, I did a lot of close-in/close-up shooting. Perhaps this optimization is what informed my impressions of the lenses, which in those days were only the 35/2.8, 50/1.8 and 100/2.8.
And the "mellow contrast" married well with Kodachrome.
I do admit my Hexanon 40 AR is a whole different class than the Zuiko 35/2.8.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
All w/ 35/2.8, later (black nose) MC version.
Portra 160NC (sorry for the large size)
PanF+/Rodinal
Neopan 400/Rodinal
Portra 160NC (sorry for the large size)
PanF+/Rodinal
Neopan 400/Rodinal
newspaperguy
Well-known
I too have nothing but respect for my Zuiko 35/2.8.
It's been an "everyday carry" for me for years.
It's been an "everyday carry" for me for years.
Last edited:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
One more for good measure ...
... in looking at these, I am conflicted, or at least puzzled. I'm no post-processing maven, I'm grabbing from flickr posts (God knows what they do to already compromised JPGs,) I don't have the negatives in front of me, and what's the use of images on the web? (They are representations of photographs, not actual photographs.)
I need about a day of poring over negatives to know what to do. No agnst, but I want to settle on THE KIT. Should I keep any OM gear, or just go with the Hexanon AR 40? If I keep one OM kit, what would it be? OM-x and 21, 28 and 50? Which 50(s)? 1.4 for sure, but do I "need" the 50/3.5 macro? Does the 100 stay?
I do "love" the OM bodies, they are like Ms with a pentaprism.
I'm ready to move on to an M body (or two) and seriously good glass. Even though those don't make the photograph.
... in looking at these, I am conflicted, or at least puzzled. I'm no post-processing maven, I'm grabbing from flickr posts (God knows what they do to already compromised JPGs,) I don't have the negatives in front of me, and what's the use of images on the web? (They are representations of photographs, not actual photographs.)
I need about a day of poring over negatives to know what to do. No agnst, but I want to settle on THE KIT. Should I keep any OM gear, or just go with the Hexanon AR 40? If I keep one OM kit, what would it be? OM-x and 21, 28 and 50? Which 50(s)? 1.4 for sure, but do I "need" the 50/3.5 macro? Does the 100 stay?
I do "love" the OM bodies, they are like Ms with a pentaprism.
I'm ready to move on to an M body (or two) and seriously good glass. Even though those don't make the photograph.
FrankS
Registered User
hi earl,
get a leica, keep the om gear
get a leica, keep the om gear
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Frank: OK.
You da man.
You da man.
nikku
Well-known
I will add that many see the later 35/2 as superior to the earlier (silver nose) 35/2. So that may play into the equation as well. Ferider, do you have a later copy of the lens? If it performs at all like the OMZ 28/2, I may have to take a second look. The 28/2 is one of my favorite lenses ever.
And typically I don't put too much stock into sharpness tests either; my zuiko 35/2.8 seemed very sharp. It just didn't ever do anything for me, especially compared to my Oly XA and my Nikkor 35/2.
And typically I don't put too much stock into sharpness tests either; my zuiko 35/2.8 seemed very sharp. It just didn't ever do anything for me, especially compared to my Oly XA and my Nikkor 35/2.
PatrickT
New Rangefinder User
I have had two copies of the 35/2 and one copy (which I still have) of the 35/2.8. I was unimpressed with the 35/2, especially wide open (which is where I wanted to use it). Stopped down to f/2.8 or f/4 it was pretty sharp. The 35/2.8 is my current walk-around lens and I think it's okay. Better than the two 35/2's that I had and just as sharp wide open as the 35/2 was at f/2.8 (which is plenty sharp for me. It should be noted that I used these lenses almost exclusively on my Canon 5D and didn't use them on film.
Overall, I'd say that the 35/2 isn't worth the price they go for but the 35/2.8 certainly is (I got mine for around $30). Both lenses are fairly mediocre, but I am fairly satisfied with the 35/2.8 that I have now.
On a side note, I have all the lenses listed that the OP has and really like them (especially the 50/1.4).
Here are some samples from my 5D.
35/2.8:
35/2:
Overall, I'd say that the 35/2 isn't worth the price they go for but the 35/2.8 certainly is (I got mine for around $30). Both lenses are fairly mediocre, but I am fairly satisfied with the 35/2.8 that I have now.
On a side note, I have all the lenses listed that the OP has and really like them (especially the 50/1.4).
Here are some samples from my 5D.
35/2.8:
35/2: