Zuiko OM 35mm or 28mm?

[totifoto]

I have been shooting my OM2n for about 2 years now with the 50mm f1.8.....because it is the only lens I have for it 😀 Love that lens, very sharp and nice to use in every way.

I have always been a 50mm guy but lately I have been drawn to the 35mm and a few weeks ago I borrowed a 35mm f2.8 for my Oly. I´m not sure if it was the MC or the SC lens.
Anyway I loved the angle of the 35mm and how fast I was focusing it and it totally gave me a new perspective. But I was not so pleased with the result from the lens, not so sharp ,specially when focusing from 5 feet to infinity. I was mostly shooting from f8- f16, made a few shots at 2.8, at close distance the sharpness was ok, nothing compered to the 50mm f1.8 though.

After googling my fingers off I found a lot of forums and reviews of people having some love/hate relationship with this lens.

So I want to ask you rangefinderforumsawesomepeoplethathavealotofinfo what you think? 🙂

Should I get the 35mm f2.8 (2.0 out of my budget) or the 28mm f2.8 (f2.0 out of my budget) don´t mind going even wider and taking the 28mm if it is sharper. I have also been looking at the 24mm f2.8 but I think that is a bit to wide for most of my photography but would be nice have for some cases.

Share your thoughts? Samples would be awesome 🙂

 

[ChrisN]

I've used them all, and in the M system I mainly shoot 35mm. But with the OM I prefer a 28/3.5 partnered with a 50. The 28/3.5 is quite under-valued, and is a very sharp lens. I like the distinctly wider field-of-view, which leaves little doubt that the lens used is a wide, rather than the "wide-normal" perspective of the 35mm. The 24mm is distinctly wider again, and a little more difficult to use well.

Here's a shot from the CV 28/3.5 used with a Leica M.

 

[redisburning]

the best of the 2.8 wides IMO is the 24, from a technical standpoint. it's really nice.

Rather than harp on about the 35mm lenses, I can tell you that both the f2.0 and f3.5 28mm lenses are great, if you like 28.mm As far as the 3.5 vs 2.0 goes, the 2.0 gives you an easier way to focus in low light, and I think it draws a bit better if stuff in the frame is out of focus. Im happy to have the 3.5 for when I want a wide, and Im happy to have the 2.0 until someone buys it lol.

 

[plummerl]

The 24/f2.8 was my standard lens for about 20 years with my OM1.

 

[Mystyler]

I'm not a wide angle kind of guy, but I bought a 28mm f/2.8 to give me "motivation" to use it. I actually like it a lot, it is a very good lens.

 

[Frontman]

The 35mm can be a great lens if you find a good one. I had bad luck with a couple of these lenses, but the last one I tried (a later "made in Japan" model) is an outstanding lens.

There isn't a great deal of difference between the 50mm and the 35mm, so if I were you, I would use the 28 or 24. Here in Japan the 24mm seems to be a favorite of the OM crowd.

 

[zuiko85]

If you didn't get good results with the 35mm f2.8 then you got a bad sample of that lens. That is unless you are trying to cram too much detail onto a 24X36 patch of film. I prefer my old 35 f2.8 to a 35 f2 I had and sold. Choose what angle of view you like best and get that lens. What ever you select, check it to make sure you have a good copy. All OM Zuiko's are getting a bit long in the tooth.

 

[totifoto]

Thank you all for the replies 🙂

I live in Iceland so I have to order this lens from ebay, BHphoto, keh.com or someone like that so it is not easy for my to try out a few copys.

I have been looking at the 24mm for a while and maybe I will just go for that one, the 28mm f3,5 have also got my attention before manly for the price tag 😀

 

[redisburning]

If you didn't get good results with the 35mm f2.8 then you got a bad sample of that lens. That is unless you are trying to cram too much detail onto a 24X36 patch of film.

I just don't understand your opinion.

Arguing it's good enough is one thing, arguing that the breadth of technically superior 35mm lenses are too good seems silly to me.

I do not think it is appropriate to conflate "I like it" with "this is a very good product". Especially when someone is asking for buying advice. Like you said, these lenses have been around for a long time, and people have tested them since they were released. Time and time again the 35mm OM lenses lag behind the rest of the OM wides. Again, they are never unusable, and sometimes you win the grinding lottery and get a lens that performs above spec, but that is part of what makes something like the 24/2.8 a better buy.

If you really want a 35, go for it. If you just want a nice, inexpensive OM prime for outdoor shooting, there are simply better choices since even some of the slow OM wides are still competitive with current wides, e.g. 18/3.5, 21/3.5, 24/2.8, 28/3.5.

 

[anjoca76]

One of my favorite lenses ever was my Zuiko 28/3.5. That lens alone kept me shooting my OM-2n long after I enjoyed using the camera itself.


img109 by smokeycalifornia, on Flickr

 

[wblynch]

I have the 28/3.5, the 28/2.8 and the 35/2.8

I got very lucky and found near mint copies of all three in the past two years, to augment the 28/3.5 I bought new in 1975 and the 28/2.8 from 1982.

I haven't used the 35 much, only a couple dozen shots, but used the 28's for decades.

I prefer the 28/2.8 of the three. It is very sharp, well built and easy to use. The wide angle effect is not bad, as long as you don't get too close to someone's face.

Certainly you can't go wrong with any of them but I recommend you start with a 28/2.8.

As with all OM Zuikos, use a lens hood outdoors to control flare.

 

[oftheherd]

I'm not an Olympus OM user. However, I have used SLR primes from 18mm to 600mm. I rather 'see' wide over long, but always liked to have those lenses which would let me always get the shots I wanted.

That to say I have never liked the 35mm lens way of looking at things. It was the 4th prime lens I got for my SLR. I could just never like it. I liked 28mm, 18mm, and 24mm when I got that. If as you say, you see more wide as well, I would not think 35mm would be of much use to you. But only you can really decide.

 

[shadowfox]

By the way, that's one kick-butt shot !!
Have you print this in your darkroom, Chris?

 

[gavinlg]

For what its worth, I tested a late model 28mm f3.5 against a few canon L lenses around the same focal length on a 5d, and the little OM kicked the canons butt! Its a really great lens.