BillBingham2
Registered User
aeolist
Member
wow you guys! last time I answered I thought the thread had peaked and noone else was going to post - and look at all those useful replies!
anyway, a friend is going to sell me his OM 35/2.8 (he is an evil Canon EF shooter) and I'll try to reach my own conclusions
again thanks for all the replies
anyway, a friend is going to sell me his OM 35/2.8 (he is an evil Canon EF shooter) and I'll try to reach my own conclusions
again thanks for all the replies
David Murphy
Veteran
I must admit (being a diehard Leica/Nikon/Zeiss lover) that Zuiko SLR lenses are very good. Their build quality is not the best, but not bad, and the optics are very good, at least on every one I've used.
David Murphy
Veteran
Here's a taken with a Zuiko 35/2.8 one on an OM-1 with ISO 200 (or 400?) inexpensive color print film. I was just testing the lens a few years ago - no art in mind. The compression, resolution, etc. to get it small enough to serve off of Photobucket makes the image look soft, but original is tack sharp.
Last edited:
aeolist
Member
the excellent mir site has a thing or two about the 35s
http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/35mm.htm
so according to this, 2 versions of the 35/2.0 are out, not much difference between them. But the 35/2.8 had 2 really distinct versions, as I understand it, there was an early 35/2.8 that was small, weighed less and was a SC lens, whereas after 1984 they produced a much heavier and longer lens that was MC. If you look at the numbers, the difference between these 2 lenses must be huge!
let me quote from the above link
[FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica]Weight: 240g (8.5oz); older version: 170g (6.0 oz.)
[/FONT][FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica]Length: 43mm; older version: 33mm (1.3")
Now that length and weight are really a lot for a zuiko lens, comparable to the 50/1.4!
[/FONT]
Interested in which version each of you has.
http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/35mm.htm
so according to this, 2 versions of the 35/2.0 are out, not much difference between them. But the 35/2.8 had 2 really distinct versions, as I understand it, there was an early 35/2.8 that was small, weighed less and was a SC lens, whereas after 1984 they produced a much heavier and longer lens that was MC. If you look at the numbers, the difference between these 2 lenses must be huge!
let me quote from the above link
[FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica]Weight: 240g (8.5oz); older version: 170g (6.0 oz.)
[/FONT][FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica]Length: 43mm; older version: 33mm (1.3")
Now that length and weight are really a lot for a zuiko lens, comparable to the 50/1.4!
[/FONT]
Interested in which version each of you has.
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
the zuiko 35mm's don'e have the best reputation, and thats not saying that they're bad glass, but they're not as good as some of the other zuikos.
That 28mm f3.5 (late model) is one such lens - tiny, but probably one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used.
That 28mm f3.5 (late model) is one such lens - tiny, but probably one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Hmm, interesting ... my current 35/2.8 is, I think, a later version. It has a black filter ring as opposed to silver, and is MC. I don't have it at hand, so will have to check the next time I'm home.
I believe I have, somewhere, an older, silver-nose/SC version that had developed fungus. If I can find it I will compare size and weight.
I'd love to have a 35/2 if only for a short time to do some comparison shots. Since Will has both I expect him to do that test for me and report here!
All I know is that I used my SC 35/2.8 a lot, for a long time as my standard lens, and never thought it was sub-par. But then, perhaps I was less critical and just concentrated on the photo and not the performance of the gear.
aeolist
Member
this lens is (<s>just a mm or 2</s>)(edit: actually 6mm) longer than the 40/2 pancake... really makes you wonder what the fuss is about for the latter
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
Originally Posted by fdigital
That 28mm f3.5 (late model) is one such lens - tiny, but probably one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used.
Um, your numbers don't make sense to me.
28mm is just a mm or 2 longer than the 40?
That 28mm f3.5 (late model) is one such lens - tiny, but probably one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used.
Um, your numbers don't make sense to me.
28mm is just a mm or 2 longer than the 40?
aeolist
Member
my bad, the 28/3.5 is 31mm in length and the 40/2.0 is 25mm, but still the 28/3.5 is more "pancaky" than pancakes in other brands
ferider
Veteran
Compared to the 28/3.5, the 28/2 is "sharper" at each f-stop.
They are all dull when compared to the CV 28/3.5
They are all dull when compared to the CV 28/3.5
nikku
Well-known
Compared to the 28/3.5, the 28/2 is "sharper" at each f-stop.
They are all dull when compared to the CV 28/3.5
I'll put the Zuiko 28/2 against any other 28mm. That lens is AWESOME.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Its not size that makes the 40mm f2 special. Its the focal length, which is a perfect one for street photography, in my experience. The Olympus 40 has very nice bokeh compared to any of the Olympus 35mm or 50mm lenses and it is sharper than the 35mm lenses, both of which frankly suck compared to 35mm lenses from many other manufacturers.
aeolist
Member
the price for the 40/2.0, you would agree, is exhorbitant. really not worth it. Goes for $600-700 on keh
chris, could you please check which version of the 35/2.8 you have? I'm still hoping the MC version is better than the more common SC version.
and can the MC version really be that much longer than the SC (G.Zuiko) I wonder.
chris, could you please check which version of the 35/2.8 you have? I'm still hoping the MC version is better than the more common SC version.
and can the MC version really be that much longer than the SC (G.Zuiko) I wonder.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
My 35/2.8 is a black nosed single coated. The very last ones were black nosed multicoated, and I haven't tried one of them. They're uncommon, while the black singlecoated one like I have is very easy to find.
$600-700 for the 40 is exhorbitant. I paid $400 for mine several years ago, when they normally went for $500 so I felt like I got a deal. I wouldn't pay $600 for it; can't afford it and if I could there's better stuff to spend $600 for.
gavinlg
Veteran
I've never tried the f2, but now I really want to.
Frontman
Well-known
I've found that not all Zuiko lenses are created equal. I have had 2 Zuiko 35/2 chrome-nose lenses, and found that the second one was sharper than the first. Perhaps the first one had been dropped at one time or another, or it wasn't assembled with as much care.
My favorite 35/2 lens is the Canon FD with the concave front element, it excels the Zuiko in every way except for size (the FD lense is much longer and heavier).
The Zuiko 40/2 is the best lens in this range, I plan to pick up another one of these lenses next week.
My favorite 35/2 lens is the Canon FD with the concave front element, it excels the Zuiko in every way except for size (the FD lense is much longer and heavier).
The Zuiko 40/2 is the best lens in this range, I plan to pick up another one of these lenses next week.
aeolist
Member
i saw some pictures made with the canon fd you mention and they were truly awesome, a unique "old" quality to them, but in a good way!
Spyderman
Well-known
I have 2 versions: silver nose and black nose, but both are the same size. I believe this is a typo. I don't think there ever was a 35/2.8 that big.
BTW: look at the dimensions of the 35/2 a few lines earlier:
Doesn't it look familiar ? I think the author has just copy-pasted it and forgot to edit.