Wide angle lens for OM?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras and Accessories' started by Anon Ymous, Feb 7, 2008.

  1. Anon Ymous

    Anon Ymous Member

    Messages:
    1,480
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    Location:
    Greece
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Hello, I recently started photography as a hobby and I need some advice. I have an Olympus OM10 with the classic 50mm f/1.8 lens. I am happy with my camera and I just need a wide angle lens to get these photos that I can't get with the 50mm. I'm thinking about getting the 28mm f/2.8. It seems to be reasonably priced. I also have a Hoya linear polariser (the regular, not HMC or Pro). So, has anybody used this lens? Will I have a problem with vigneting if I use it with the polariser on? Is it sharp, or is it kind of... blury?

    Thanks in advance!
     
  2. Andy K

    Andy K Member

    Messages:
    9,422
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Location:
    Sunny Southe
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The 28 f2.8 is an excellent lens. If you use a polariser there should be no vignetting. I made the attached photographs with Olympus OM-1, Zuiko 28mm f2.8 and a polarising filter.


    Ps. Welcome to APUG.
     

    Attached Files:

  3. Shiny

    Shiny Member

    Messages:
    265
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    Newcastle up
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I have the Zuiko 28mm f/2.8 and Tamron 28mm f/2.5, both very good - there are several pictures from Greece in my gallery using a Polariser with no vignetting problems.

    If you use a lens hood you will need a special wide-angle one to avoid vignetting.

    Jim
     
  4. Anon Ymous

    Anon Ymous Member

    Messages:
    1,480
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    Location:
    Greece
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Wow! Instant reply :smile: The photos look nice. I like these clouds. And no vignetting evident. Time to order one...

    Oh, thanks a lot!
     
  5. Blighty

    Blighty Subscriber

    Messages:
    902
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    Lancaster, N
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The 24mm is also an excellent lens and very sharp too.
     
  6. PhotoJim

    PhotoJim Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    Regina, SK,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I prefer a 24mm lens personally, but a 28 is a really good focal length for a first wide angle lens. Some find 24 to be too wide.

    28 is much, much wider than 50 so you will find it to be a big help. The prices are also pretty attractive.
     
  7. oldglass

    oldglass Member

    Messages:
    43
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Good and reasonable suggestions here.

    The best OM wideangle I have in terms of contrast and sharpness is the 24/2.8 but I often find it too wide.

    The 28/2.8 is a close second and don't dismiss the Tamron 28/2.5 mentioned above also, that's one unassuming, but excellent lens.
     
  8. Anon Ymous

    Anon Ymous Member

    Messages:
    1,480
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    Location:
    Greece
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Yes, 24mm seem to be very nice, but I did a bit of research on the internet and I got the impression that it is exactly at the point where distortion gets a bit evident. Am I wrong? The 24mm f2.8 is also reasonably priced and well within my budget (80 euros for the 28mm, 100 for the 24mm from ffordes), but you get about 8 degrees more field of view and a bit more distortion. Any comments?
     
  9. rusty71

    rusty71 Member

    Messages:
    212
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, M
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    There are at least two versions of the OM Zuiko 28mm lens. I'm surprised no one mentioned the older, less expensive, and sharper 28mm f3.5.
    I got one for around $50 US and it's great. You can see some shots here:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/arcanefuture/sets/72157600367288404/
    They are shot with Efke IR film and thus don't really showcase the sharpness and contrast of this little gem of a lens. But there is a Zuiko 28mm group on flickr.com you should check out.
     
  10. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber

    Messages:
    17,042
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Delta, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I used my Zuiko 24mm f/2.8 for this shot from my APUG gallery:

    http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=28344&ppuser=6479

    Personally, I like the field of view of a 35mm lens - generally that is my "standard" lens. My current and favorite kit is 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0 and 85mm f/2.0 - all Zuiko.

    I used one of my Zuiko 35mm f/2.0 lenses for this shot from my APUG gallery:

    http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=29279&ppuser=6479

    For years I used a 28mm f/3.5 lens, a 50mm f/1.8 lens and a 135mm f/3.5 lens (all Zuiko), but I prefer my current kit - not because of quality concerns, but definitely because of size, and speed.

    Matt

    Whoops - I just realized that you are not a subscriber, so you won't be able to look at my gallery photos. I'll attempt to post the 24mm photo here:



     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 8, 2008
  11. Mick Fagan

    Mick Fagan Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,109
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Location:
    Melbourne Au
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Regarding the different usage of the 28mm and the 24mm lenses and the slight distortion of the 24mm lens over the 28mm lens, this is my point of view.

    When I'm travelling on a trip I usually take 3 lenses and a body, there are two combinations I take.

    28 / 50 / 105 for general landscape, portrait and travel shooting.

    24 / 50 / 105 for a trip to Europe where I will often be shooting buildings or cityscapes, as well as general landscape, portrait and travel shooting.

    I find the 24 is invaluable when shooting in the old parts of cities. You get so much more in the 24mm frame with your back to a wall on the other side of the street, compared to a 28m lens.

    Distortion with the 24mm frame is there, but is often only noticeable if you take a group shot of people and crowd the frame. The people on the edges will have slightly elongated bodies.

    Andy K has samples shot with a 28mm lens. Those types of scenes usually work better with a 28mm lens. A 24mm lens for those scenes would include so much more and the small details would really be a fair bit smaller.

    Mick.
     
  12. Anon Ymous

    Anon Ymous Member

    Messages:
    1,480
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    Location:
    Greece
    Shooter:
    35mm
    You've got some interesting points there. A 24mm will obviously give you some more oportunities. On the other hand, I'm kind of picky when it comes to distortion. Combined with the fact that you may lose some interesting details I guess that the 28mm is the golden mean for me. It's a good start anyway.
     
  13. panastasia

    panastasia Member

    Messages:
    625
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Dedham, Ma,
    Shooter:
    Med. Format Pan
    Mick gives a good explanation of the distortion (w/both lenses). If you keep the camera level, linear distortion is not a problem and you can crop the 24mm image (stretched ends) to appear like the 28mm.

    In 35mm format I never go wider than 28mm (I hate distortion in most images), but using a 22-25mm equivalent LF wide-angle, such as the 47mm, is a different story - less disturbing distortion.
     
  14. Uncle Bill

    Uncle Bill Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,381
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Oakville and
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I have the Zuiko 28 f3.5 lens in my OM kit and I am very happy with it. I could not believe how sharp it was.
     
  15. PhotoJim

    PhotoJim Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    Regina, SK,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The 24 doesn't distort, per se, but the wider field of view does make images look different.

    I can't tell you for certain whether you'll prefer a 24 or a 28. I can only tell you that I prefer a 24, but I didn't exactly feel disadvantaged when my widest lens was a 28. I loved that focal length. I still do. I just love 24 more now. :smile:
     
  16. panastasia

    panastasia Member

    Messages:
    625
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Dedham, Ma,
    Shooter:
    Med. Format Pan
     
  17. PhotoJim

    PhotoJim Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    Regina, SK,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I guess it depends on how you define distortion. Compared to a fisheye lens, a rectilinear wide angle lens has no distortion at all.
     
  18. Allan Swindles

    Allan Swindles Member

    Messages:
    250
    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    Wirral, Engl
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    You won't go wrong with the original Zuiko 28mm f3.5. The 2.8 version came along later and IMHO offers no improvement in image quality, some say less. Be aware though that these lenses are now 25/30 years old and are likely to suffer from weak diaphragm return so check before you buy. CLA is not a problem but it will add £30/40 to the cost.
     
  19. SAlred

    SAlred Member

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    Maryland, US
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    I'll chime in on the 28mm f/3.5 as a fine little lens. I spent my "Grand Tour" summer (1978) roaming around Europe with an OM-1, the 28 f/3.5 and the 100 f/2.8 shooting Kodachrome 64 (!). I have some wonderful shots from inside the Pantheon and St. Peters in Rome taken with the 28.

    I splurged on a 28 f/2.0 Zuiko when I returned to the States, but it that was pure GAS in action. The 3.5 is a gem.

    Steve A.
     
  20. panastasia

    panastasia Member

    Messages:
    625
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Dedham, Ma,
    Shooter:
    Med. Format Pan
    The 28mm f/2.0 looks like a keeper, I would go for that one. Plenty wide for most practical shots (75 deg angle-of-view). The 24 is more extreme (something like, 82 deg angle-of-view), near-far subjects appear unrealistic, IMO, but sometimes that's what makes the shot work. You can alway go more-wide later, what's wider than 24mm?
     
  21. Andy K

    Andy K Member

    Messages:
    9,422
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Location:
    Sunny Southe
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I believe the OM Zuiko lens range included 21mm, 16mm and even an 8mm fisheye.


    <edit> Here is a page which lists the OM Zuiko lens range: http://www.datasync.com/~farrar/zuiko.html
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 9, 2008
  22. Anon Ymous

    Anon Ymous Member

    Messages:
    1,480
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    Location:
    Greece
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Summer 1978... I must have been 6 months old back then :tongue:.

    Eventualy, I followed my gut feeling and ordered the 28 f2.8. You never know, f2.8 could make a difference between possible and imposible. And it wasn't for a lot more money, as opposed for the f2.

    Oh, by the way, what does GAS mean?
     
  23. Mick Fagan

    Mick Fagan Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,109
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Location:
    Melbourne Au
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Andy, the Zuiko wide angle lenses finished at 18mm.

    I have shot with it and it is as good as the Nikkor 18mm.

    I have also used the Zuiko 16mm fish eye and compared it to the Nikkor 15mm rectilinear. They are both extremely good, extremely pricey and extremely different.

    Mick.
     
  24. PhotoJim

    PhotoJim Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    Regina, SK,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It's kind of hard to go wrong here. There are few awful 28s out there.

    I think the 28 was a wise choice. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see you wanting a 24 in a few months, but the 28 is so inexpensive that even if you end up with a 24, the 28 will earn its keep regardless.

    I've occasionally been tempted to get a 28/3.5 as a throw-around lens (Nikon had a pretty good one too), but so far I've resisted.