Twentysomething for OM or Nikon

Jerevan

Jerevan

Recycled User
Local time
1:35 AM
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
1,118
The dilemma of having several (read: too many) SLR systems ...

I am thinking of getting something wider than 28, and I am vacillating between an OM 21/3.5 (secondary system) or something similar to this in the Nikon (first, last and always).

As far as I have understood it, the OM 21 is well regarded, but how does the Nikkor 20/3.5 stack up against it?

Any other choices in that focal length? I am only trying to dip my toe in. And I have given up the idea of trying a Super Angulon-M, as much as I love the look (it's too expensive and too much guessing what's going on the negative). I am an SLR guy, I have to admit it.
 
Jerevan said:
As far as I have understood it, the OM 21 is well regarded, but how does the Nikkor 20/3.5 stack up against it?
Click to expand...

Both are excellent, and long time favourites among the microphotography crowd. Their faster sisters (21/2 respectively 20/2.8) both use floating elements and are less suitable for the latter.
 
I can say nothing about the Nikon, but as a longtime OM user I am happy with my little G 21/3.5. You can judge my results for yourself in the RFF gallery by selecting that lens in the advanced options. You dont need to fill in other info, b/c my handful of images on an OM4t and A7 are the only examples. All BW, and only one a landscape, but hope it may help.
 
Robert,

you seem to be well versed in the arcane rites of handling wide angles - really nice photographs. Liked the 21 ones - thanks for the show! :)

I do love wide angles done well and often I wish I could do "deep focus" stuff, such as your 28 mm beach photograph of the family. When you pull it off, it is like reading a whole book. I am very inspired by the swedish director/film maker Roy Andersson in that respect.
 
I have no experience with the Olympus OM System wides.

For Nikon system, I had the Nikkor 20m f/3.5 AI-S (52mm filter thread) back when it was a brand new lens. And an excellent performer it was—one of my favorite lenses. Had and used it for 21 years.

Some years later, I acquired a Nikon 20mm f/2.8 AF-D. It showed some small improvement in corner/edge quality over the earlier 20/3.5AI-S, but didn't send me with its overall rendering. So I sold it to a friend who liked it and acquired another 20/3.5 AI-S ... and knew why I liked that lens so much.

A few years later, I'd sold the 20/3.5 again, wanted another ultra wide, and bought a Nikkor 18mm f/3.5 AI-S. Another outstanding performer, if a bit bulkier than the little 20/3.5.

Nowadays, I've moved over to the Leicaflex SL, Leica R8, and Leica SL. I acquired an Elmarit-R 19mm f/2.8 v1 for them. It is an excellent lens, outperforming the Nikkors. I understand the v2 lens is even better, but I'm happy with this one.
 
I have no experience with the Olympus, but I do own the 20mm Nikkor now for several years and I love it very much! It's a great performer and I love the fact that it's small and light.
 
Thanks for all the input!

I am not totally convinced yet that anything wider than 28 is a good idea. Perhaps this is the sweet spot for me. I'll try to see if someone has a wider lens for OM/Nikon locally.
 
rhl-oregon said:
Good luck. 28 is a rational lmit to wideangleness for many people. If your local search doesnt turn up anything, the complete political compromise is available in the classifieds--an OM 24/2.8 converted to Nikon F mount!
Click to expand...

Now that is a compromise for sure! :D

I realized today, looking at the Nikon F2 on the table, that I have had that particular camera for 10 years. For someone like me, changing cameras like other people change shirts, it is an ocean of time.

Contemplating sending the OM2n and the 28/2.8 off and get something wide for the F2.
 
Ummm ... I would never part completely with the OM system, but that is a different subject. :)

I have the 28/2.8 as well as the 21/2. I have never owned the 21/3.5, but have never heard a negative opinion of it.

The 21/2 is spectacular, one of the best fast 21s ever produced. It is smaller than many 50/2 SLR lenses and when handled with care there is little if any WA distortion. This results in a super-wide FOV that doesn't LOOK super-wide.

When you combine the size, weight and handling of an OM-1/2/3/4 with the 21, it's hard for me to even consider shooting with the Nikon equivalent kit, and I do currently have a Nikon body. But again, that's just me.
 
I got my hands on a Nikon 20/2.8, borrowed it from a friend ... well, is it wide or is it wide? :D This will take some time to get used to, I think.

Still on the fence about the OM2n and the 28.
 
Jerevan said:
........I am not totally convinced yet that anything wider than 28 is a good idea. Perhaps this is the sweet spot for me. I'll try to see if someone has a wider lens for OM/Nikon locally.
Click to expand...

I have neither the Olympus or Nikon 21mm lenses, but I do have a Leitz R 21mm I use on my Leica rangefinders.

I was in the same shoes you were, totally happy with a 28mm lens and didn’t see much use for a wider angle lens. An opportunity arose for me to purchase a Leitz R 21mm at a very affordable price. I hopped on it, and I’m glad I did. We just came back from a trip to the American southwest and I was amazed how useful this lens was in both Zion National Park and the Grand Canyon. I also photographed a wedding while in Nevada and the 21mm proved it’s worth there.

If you do purchase 21mm lens, maybe you’ll be as pleasantly surprised as I was how useful this focal length is.

Jim B.
 
I'd pick up a 1st gen CV 15, put it on a Bessa L and never take it off.

If you're thinking about going wider, go W I D D D E R R R R!

B2 (;->
 
Eventually, while sitting on the fence for a long time ... a very nice condition non-AI Nikkor-N 24/2.8 happened to just pass by and I had to grab that. :)

As it stands, I am keeping to the Nikon system since it is more complete (24/2.8, 50/2, 55/3.5, 105/2.5 and I may finish that off with a 200/4).
 
I have been shooting a lot with my Nikon F3 and AI / AIS lenses. My two favorites have been the newer 50mm f/1.8 and a 20mm f/4 that I picked up for about $150 on eBay. Great lens, and they both fit perfectly in a side pocket for a two-lens, no-bag setup. The only trouble is they look identical on the shelf/camera so I'm never quite sure what I've got when I first grab the lens.

From what I've read, it seems the f/3.5 and f/4 both have a good reputation. I still can't discern if anyone really can tell a difference between them in performance. One day I'll try to pick up an f/3.5 version and test myself, but you probably can't go wrong with either.

To be honest, I prefer the look/performance of the older 21mm f/4 MLU lens but that's a specialty lens that I only really use on my RF or when I feel like keeping things old-school on my F2.
 
Usually walking around with the Nikon Df in the bag these days and the Nikkor-UD 20mm f3.5 non-AI gets used far more often than I had expected. There's just something about it that I'm really liking. Also carry a 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, & 105mm, but again that 20mm likes to live on the Df.

Best,
-Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom