The lens I forgot to own

shadowfox

shadowfox

Darkroom printing lives
Local time
11:32 PM
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
8,770
Somewhere sometime ago I traded some gears and come to possession of the 35/2.8 G.Zuiko.

Of course I forgot about it and it's just sitting next to my OM gears in my cabinet.

I like the 35/2 just fine, but this one is more compact and sports 49mm filter size. So why not give it a whirl:

4176907267_36d14691aa_o.jpg



4176907113_145220248b_o.jpg



4177665914_6deca29ee5_o.jpg




4176907203_6f67c6d634_o.jpg


Gear: OM-3 + 35/2.8 Zuiko
Film: Fuji Superia 400
Impression: Nice contrast, perfect color temperature, and non-harsh bokeh (subjective, draw your own conclusion). What's not to like?

Will it replace its faster sibling? I don't know, I have grown accustomed to the bigger sized 35/2. And the extra stop is nice. But this lens is very compact for 35mm, and on an already small OM body, it's just a nice handling combo. Very rangefinder like.

Compared to my other 35/2.8, an old beat up Nikkor-S, *in my eyes* this lens wins on color balance (the Nikkor renders "colder" hues). But the Nikkor wins in terms of raw sharpness.
 
What'd I tell ya?

The colour balance and contrast are really nice on the 35/2.8. It may not be the sharpest Zuiko in the drawer, but you are entirely correct that it handles really, really well on an OM, and is a great street shooter.

I know squat about MTF, but this might be interesting.

... And some Modern Photography tests on the SC version, found here:

35/2.8 SC (4/73 p. 99 (w/OM-1 test pp. 98-100))
Actual: 35.1/2.81, Distortion: not provided, Falloff: not provided.
2.8 4 5.6 8 11 16
Resolution at 1:50x
Center: Ex 56 VG 50 VG 50 VG 50 Ex 64 Ex 64
Corner: Ex 44 Ex 44 Ex 50 Ex 56 Ex 64 Ex 50

Contrast (%) at 30 lines/mm
Center: No Data
Corner: No Data
 
Hi Will and Trius,

Nice shots! Love the color rendition and I particularly like the golf tee.

I don't have a 35 but do have a Zuiko 28/2 and 28/2.8 and have similar feelings about them. The 28/2.8 is a bit smaller and though it may be my imagination, I think it's a bit sharper then the 28/2 at equivalent apertures. I haven't done any controlled tests or anything, but that's my subjective take so far. The 28/2.8 feels better to me, handles better, but as you said, that extra stop comes in very handy sometimes.

Sigh, there are always compromises to be made. I really don't need them both, but just haven't been able to decide which to keep, so usually have the slower lens and take the faster only when I know I'll need it. Maybe it would be better to use a faster film or push process for those times. Any thoughts?
 
Greg: It depends on how often you do really low light stuff. I'm talking about dark interiors such as live music in a bar, or night scenes light by weak streetlights, store lights, etc.

IMO, there real is no substitute for lens speed. If you don't have it, pushing is your only option, but having it means either not having to push (as much) or a faster shutter speed.

The other factor is cash, of course ... selling the 28/2 can be lucrative if you need to fund something else.
 
Trius said:
Greg: It depends on how often you do really low light stuff. I'm talking about dark interiors such as live music in a bar, or night scenes light by weak streetlights, store lights, etc.

IMO, there real is no substitute for lens speed. If you don't have it, pushing is your only option, but having it means either not having to push (as much) or a faster shutter speed.

The other factor is cash, of course ... selling the 28/2 can be lucrative if you need to fund something else.
Click to expand...

Well said. When I really think about it, lens speed is a lot more valuable to me than a marginal improvement in sharpness. And though I sometimes like the grainier look of faster films, I'd prefer to use it as an option instead of a necessity.

Thanks for helping me sort things out. It's been a very long Monday for me. Hope you are doing well.

Greg
 
Trius said:
What'd I tell ya?

The colour balance and contrast are really nice on the 35/2.8. It may not be the sharpest Zuiko in the drawer, but you are entirely correct that it handles really, really well on an OM, and is a great street shooter.

I know squat about MTF, but this might be interesting.
Click to expand...

Earl, I'd be happy with this lens if the 35/2 never existed. I haven't even try this with B&W.

pggunn said:
Hi Will and Trius,

Nice shots! Love the color rendition and I particularly like the golf tee.

Sigh, there are always compromises to be made. I really don't need them both, but just haven't been able to decide which to keep, so usually have the slower lens and take the faster only when I know I'll need it. Maybe it would be better to use a faster film or push process for those times. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Greg, I am not a lens hoarder, but in the case of Zuiko lenses, keep both f/2 and f/2.8. No harm in that they are not expensive *at all* in the long run. Especially if you like the focal length.

For instance, I am keeping both 35/2 and 35/2.8 just because I like 35mm. But will sell a 24/2.8 if I ever get a 24/2 (I finally did, but that's another story) simply because 24mm is not a focal length that I'd use very often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom