Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,948   Posts: 1,557,864   Online: 833
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,474
    Quote Originally Posted by naugastyle View Post
    I have the 28/2.8, and it's my absolute favorite.
    I'll second this. I've carried an OM 28 (3.5 and 2.8) around since the 1970s and I still use it today.

    24: too wide -- 35: too tight -- 28: ahhh, just right.

  2. #12
    Allan Swindles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wirral, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    250
    I'm more than pleased with my 28mm f3.5, larger aperture lenses will give a brighter screen image but I don't have trouble focussing, even with the plain 1-4 screen. Unless you plan to photograph an elephant in a coal cellar in available light you might not need anything faster. I also have the 35mm f2.8, equally pleasing and a good all-rounder, it depends as to what your main subjects are likely to be most suited.
    Last edited by Allan Swindles; 02-19-2010 at 05:13 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    I'm into painting with light - NOT painting by numbers!

  3. #13
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,070
    Images
    158
    Wow that 40mm pancake is crazy expensive!
    Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Texas, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,885
    I owned the 24, 28, 35, 50 primes and a couple of zooms. I nearly always used the primes because every one of them were excellent. Sorry but I don't remember the max apertures of any except the 50... f/1.8. They were fine lenses all... especially the primes.

  5. #15
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,070
    Images
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    I've never owned the slower version of the 35mm. In fact, I own two of them, because I consider it to be my standard lens.

    I find it to be very sharp, and of moderate contrast.

    The f/2.0 aperture makes it very easy to focus.

    Here is an example shot from my APUG gallery:

    Matt
    Matt, I really like the image you referenced.. but it looks dithered. (am i using the right word?) is it a bad conversion to jpg or does the image naturaly look that way from the choppy water?

    Anyway, if the 35mm f2.0 is the size of the 50mm f1.4, its still tiny compared to my canon FD lenses.
    Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

  6. #16
    Prest_400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    544
    Ken, nice collection. But, where's the OM-1?
    That silvernose looks nice. I'd like to get a silvernose lens someday; But I won't do many changes to my gear in the near future; only lens I consider adding is a 100mm f2.8. And maybe upgrade to a 50mm f1.4. And, yes, a scanner.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allan Swindles View Post
    I'm more than pleased with my 28mm f3.5, larger aperture lenses will give a brighter screen image but I don't have trouble focussing, even with the plain 1-4 screen. Unless you plan to photograph an elephant in a coal cellar in available light you might not need anything faster. I also have the 35mm f2.8, equally pleasing and a good all-rounder, it depends as to what your main subjects are likely to be most suited.
    I agree on the 28 f3.5. It's a quite nice lens, just that it's a bit slower and the focusing screen will be a bit dim. I often use a polarizer with this lens outdoors and it doesn't help on brightness.

    I don't own the OMZ 35mm lenses. I'm quite happy with the MiJ 50mm 1.8; It's a bit hard on unfocused backgrounds and a nice lens, moderately fast (compared to the 35s and 28s). I like fast lenses, and being a indoor/lower light shooter, it helps.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    I cannot comment on the quality of Zuiko wide angle lenses since I own none. The only Zuiko I own is a 50 mm f/1.8 lens attached to an OM-G. I'm not crazy about the camera, but the lens is absolutely first rate - easily on par with the best of the Nikkors of that focal length in practical use. However, I do own wide angle primes in 20, 24, 28, and 35 mm focal lengths. Of them all, I find myself using the 24 mm lens the most. The way I figure it, if you want wide then go wide. The 28 is a really nice lens, but it's not wide enough for the way I see things. The 35 is too close to a 50 and doesn't see much use unless I'm looking for a more or less normal perspective in moderately tight spaces. The 20 is too wide for anything other than extreme perspective distortion, but fun when you want it.
    Frank Schifano

  8. #18
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,601
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by darinwc View Post
    Matt, I really like the image you referenced.. but it looks dithered. (am i using the right word?) is it a bad conversion to jpg or does the image naturaly look that way from the choppy water?

    Anyway, if the 35mm f2.0 is the size of the 50mm f1.4, its still tiny compared to my canon FD lenses.
    Hi Darin:

    I make no representation about the quality of my scanning or, in this case, "post-processing" skills .

    I do tend to have problems with the size limits on APUG though.

    I'm not sure what you are referring to when you comment about dithering, but there are some surprising textures in the water in the machine prints I have.

    I've looked for another scanned image for you. This might be better:

    http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showima...imageuser=6479

    Matt

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Texas, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,885
    The OM-1 body was bullet-proof like the early Nikons or Pentax K-1000.... not much else to say on that matter. The bodies are just holders for the lenses and the old Zuikos were some of the best optics ever made, IMO. But... I haven't shot "serious" 135 in 25-28 years so my vision may be skewed.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Magnificent Rockies
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    546
    Images
    1
    I have the 35mm f2.8 and I cannot see any differences between slides projected at 10' between my 35 f2.8 Zuiko and my Zeiss (Contax) 35 f2.8 Distagon. And, believe me, I have tried to make a case for one or the other. No dice, kept 'em both.
    -Fred

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin