Super wide OM1 and another lens

[arpy]

Hi all,

after the announcement of the Micro Four Thirds, I got rid of my older investment in the regular Four Thirds. (I want to own a system camera that is as small as possible.) The price for G1 is falling slooowly and there are still no lenses I'm really interesting in (pannasonic 20/1.7, 45/2.8, hoping for something exciting from olympus). At this time, the oly counterpart is nothing to count with (and yes, I know about the Juny's expectations).

To make my long story short... As a hearty amateur, I puchased an OM1 + 24/2.8 to make me busy in the meantime. After some time and some rolls of a 400-ISO-BW-film, I really fall in love with this "primitive" machine.

So, while waiting for my Micro Four Thirds EVIL dream-toy, I am wondering (pure GAS) about another lens for the OM. The decisive moments are the 49 mm filter thread, weight, size, price, availability, coefficient with my 24/2.8...

The value of:... Is for me:
28/2.8... A nice wide, but I've got already the super-wide, so this is a no-go
35/2.8... The classic, the wide-normal; but yeah, I've got already the super-wide and I was never ever a wide-wide guy
50/1.4... Really tempting, "the fast normal", a fine complement to my super-wide
50/3.5... Really tempting, "the normal" + macro, another fine complement to my super-wide
100/2.8... Really tempting, fast short tele (+ nice for portraits), an extra fine complement to my super-wide

Mmm, decisions. (LOL, do you know some kind of therapy?) I have to decide for only one.

Any suggestions will be appreciated. Please remember - this is just a GAS! I'm saving all my funds for the EVIL MFT.

Thanks, arpy.

 

[ChrisN]

The 50/1.4 - really brightens up the viewfinder; great normal/short telephoto perspective.

Don't forget the 85/2 - now there's a nice lens.

 

[ferider]

The 50/3.5 is a very underrated lens, IMO. Very sharp, usable for general purpose, small, and has a floating element.

The other lens I would consider is a late 50/1.8, more or less the OM equivalent of a Summicron.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[gavinlg]

go for a late 50mm f1.8 - one of the "made in Japan" models and you'll have a brilliant all-rounded 50mm for cheap.

 

[bgb]

I had a 24mm f2.8 and a 100mm f2.8 once upon a time ... beautiful bits of glass ... real treasure ... they were the only lenses i needed
Of course if you decided to buy every Zuiko lens made for the OM-1 i would not try to stop you ...

 

[plummerl]

Being the owner of the 16mm and 18mm (ok, also all the 21mm's), I would not apply the label of "super wide" to the 24mm. In your group, I would first go with the 50mm f1.4, then the 100mm. While your at it, raise the bar and go for the f2 versions!

 

[marcr1230]

85 2.0 and 105 2.8 are both great choices - fantastic portrait lenses

 

[panchro-press]

The 55mm f1.2 gives me options I'd miss if I didn't have it.

 

[ishpop]

I really enjoy my 24 2.8

I have the 50mm 1.4 and 1.8. I like the bokeh of my 1.4 a little more, but its not a huge difference.. My 50mm 3.5 macro is fun due to the close focus options.

 

[arpy]

The 50/1.4 - really brightens up the viewfinder; great normal/short telephoto perspective.

Yes, IMO everyone should at least try a very fast lens.

Don't forget the 85/2 - now there's a nice lens.

I've been told so - but there must be some limits in any acquisition - some of mine are:
the filter thread = 49 mm
the price < $ 150 for a nice copy
the weight < 230 g
the volume = not much bigger than the standard 50/1.4
This lens just steps over, twice.

The 50/3.5 is a very underrated lens, IMO. Very sharp, usable for general purpose, small, and has a floating element.

I think so. May be a little bit slow to my standard for a general purpose lens. And I have to admit that I don't know if I am bold enough to try macro in a BW film.

The other lens I would consider is a late 50/1.8, more or less the OM equivalent of a Summicron.

go for a late 50mm f1.8 - one of the "made in Japan" models and you'll have a brilliant all-rounded 50mm for cheap.

I believe that the 1.8 is a NICE LITTLE cheap gem. Its weight and volume is exactly on pair with my 28/2.4. On the other hand, 1.4 is a some kind of magical number, isn't? :angel:

I had a 24mm f2.8 and a 100mm f2.8 once upon a time ... beautiful bits of glass ... real treasure ... they were the only lenses i needed

I think I am heading to this solution.

Of course if you decided to buy every Zuiko lens made for the OM-1 i would not try to stop you ...

That is my big concern. I DO NOT want to be a zuikoholic.

Being the owner of the 16mm and 18mm (ok, also all the 21mm's), I would not apply the label of "super wide" to the 24mm.

The mentioned lenses are another league. Sometimes I've got problems to compose right with my "not-so-super-wide" 24mm.

In your group, I would first go with the 50mm f1.4, then the 100mm. While your at it, raise the bar and go for the f2 versions!

I am not allowed to do so. Too many gramms, (euro)cents and a bad filter thread. The f2 lenses are supposed to be great. But I don't like things, that lay about in my closet, becouse they are for me too costly to take them into the daylight.

85 2.0 and 105 2.8 are both great choices - fantastic portrait lenses

Yes, I miss the ability for a head-and-shoulders portrait in my current one-lens-system.

The 55mm f1.2 gives me options I'd miss if I didn't have it.

This is unfortunately above my limits.

I have the 50mm 1.4 and 1.8. I like the bokeh of my 1.4 a little more, but its not a huge difference.. My 50mm 3.5 macro is fun due to the close focus options.

Heck, a second vote for 50/3.5. Initially, my favourites were 50/1.4 and 100/2.8. At this time the 50/1.4 is going to be replaced by the 50/3.5. So maybe the 100/2.8 is a winner - it SURVIVES. However, what about the magical 1.4? And what about close-ups? :bang:

Errr, this is rather a longish reply - I'm sorry, but I'm really enjoying this concrete decision making.

 

[shadowfox]

Arpy, forget all those wimpy wides, you need one of these

... half-joking of course but that 300/2.8 is an excellent lens should you ever consider one.

Here's my suggestion, the 35/2.8 is an excellent glass. Cheap too.

 

[Igor.Burshteyn]

I really like 50mm f2 macro. Great bokeh and good sharpness. The only issue, as with all macro lenses in general photography, is difficulty to focus it on non-macro distances.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

You picked up a nice combo. You will either need to get the meter adjusted for the new batteries or pick up a criscam converter to insert in the battery compartment. I found that under low light situations and wide f/stops meter would be off by about 2 stops. There is an essay somewhere on the net ref. this technical problem. As far as lenses you will really need to consider what you want to shoot and how those lenses will translate to the 4/3 system. Your 24mm translates to 48mm on the 4/3s. I would get the 35mm f2.0. It is very good, a little pricey for an older lens, but translates nice to the 4/3. The 50mm that is highly rated is the 50mm f1.8 with made in Japan on the front ring. It is the last and highly sought after. Another good lens is the 85mm f2.0. Even more pricey than the 35mm but will translate to 170mm, a fairly long telephoto on 4/3 and not very large. As far as lenses go Olympus made very good and compact lenses. The major difference is the speed of the lens which always tranlates to higher dollar cost. Remember, these lenses are old and will over the course of use gather a few dust specs...especially the 50mm's. No problem there.

 

[mpve]

I often go on the streets with the 24/2.8, 35/2.8 and 85/2.0. All very good quality lenses and very small at the same time. The outfit, together with a OM1n fits my jacket pockets so no need for a bag.....

Can recommend it!!

 

[Trius]

If you want a 50/1.4, let me know. It's a great lens ... my 50/1.8 is crying for some attention!

 

[Chris101]

... I DO NOT want to be a zuikoholic. ...

It's too late arpy. You asked "what lens should I buy?" on a Zuiko-phillic forum. You're now hooked.

Here are some sample photos taken with the 50mm f/1.4 and the f/3.5. You'll really need to get them both.

 

[arpy]

Arpy, forget all those wimpy wides, you need one of these
... half-joking of course but that 300/2.8 is an excellent lens should you ever consider one.

Now, that's a lens! (And a nice body too.)

Here's my suggestion, the 35/2.8 is an excellent glass. Cheap too.

I take that into the future. Maybe there will be a day...

I really like 50mm f2 macro...

Unfortunately it costs too many cents for.

You picked up a nice combo...

I didn't consider the possibility to use the OM lenses on an MFT body. There is only one "legacy" lens I could see in my MFT setup - CV 35/40 1.4. Some inspirating tips through. I hope the dedicated lenses for MFT system will be so small/lightweight as possible (read very small).

I often go on the streets with the 24/2.8, 35/2.8 and 85/2.0. All very good quality lenses and very small at the same time. The outfit, together with a OM1n fits my jacket pockets so no need for a bag.....Can recommend it!!

That sounds like an enviable setup.

Have you any online available photos? I would like see the difference in real-world-usage between 24 and 35. I mean the difference in approach - usage, composition, etc. - from another person than me.

If you want a 50/1.4, let me know. It's a great lens ... my 50/1.8 is crying for some attention!

OK.

It's too late arpy. You asked "what lens should I buy?" on a Zuiko-phillic forum. You're now hooked.

Here are some sample photos

taken with the 50mm f/1.4 and the f/3.5. You'll really need to get them both.

Some interesting pics. I like the numbers five and eight from the 50/1.4 gallery.

Thanks all for your input. The game is over. The winner is 100/2.8.

But the future is open...

 

[btgc]

May I sound dorky? Shoot another 30 rolls with your 24mm and make decision then. You will either know what you need or that you don't need any