I'm just moving into the OM world and I'm wanting a 28mm f/2 for my OM-1n (I want the extra stop, though I'm sure some will say 2.8 is quite fast enough )
The Zuiko versions seem tricky to find and a bit variable. Of two I have recently found, one looked like it had been cleaned with Ajax and the other had fungus and "unknown marks" in the centre of the elements. Both only just under £200 ... I see others on e(xpensive)Bay for £400-£500 and that just seems a bit mad of a price
There are Kiron and Vivitar (Komine) alternatives which are much more inexpensive, but I wondered what the compromises are compared to the Zuikos?
Will I really notice the difference (shooting Tri-X or HP5+ and printing 11x14 or smaller) if I spend £50 rather than £250 on a 28/2
pdeeh, you don't say what you will be shooting and under what conditions . Do you REALY need f2.0. The Zuiko 28mm. f3.5 has always proved good enough for me, but perhaphs you're shooting black cats in dark places. Personally, I would stick with Zuiko's. Are you talking 11/14 inches or cms?
I can say that I would rather use a Zuiko OM 28mm/2.8 than any other brand of 28mm, f/2.8 or f/2.0
The price for used Olympus mount lenses has risen due to digicam users who think they're getting away with something. Of course new lenses designed for those electronic gizmos are better suited since they come from the same robotic plastic injectors as the cameras they serve.
These same people are convinced they need f/2.0 or f/1.2 or even f/0.9 lenses yet their cameras can shoot at ISO 25,000.
I say, if you are needing this lens for a digicam then buy the third party lens and rid the film world of them. It won't matter to you since digicam photos are crap anyway.
If you're shooting film on an OM then stick with Zuiko. There's a reason they have their following.
@Allan Swindles - the difference between f/2 and f/2.8 is my being able to handhold at 1/15s (which I can do with acceptable results) and 1/8s (which I can't) under the kinds of lighting conditions I not infrequently encounter. And I mean inches. Of course one rarely shoots wide open all the time, but when one needs the extra stop, one needs it.
@wblynch - I'm not quite sure why you have chosen my innocuous question relating to a film camera as an opportunity to launch a bizarre anti-digital rant, but it is neither appropriate nor helpful.
pdeeh, you have answered your own question, if you think you need f2, then go for it. I can't answer as to the quality of the other lenses you mentioned but if you think a £50 lens will compare with a Zuiko equivalent at a lot more money, then go for it. I don't know what your standards are. I can't say what will suit you and whether it would be acceptable to me. As a Hasselblad and Rolleiflex user, 35mm. does not come close but I do appreciate it's usefulness. For £50 I would be inclined to try it, it may prove adequate for your needs.
Ultimately, you will need to decide for yourself.
The vivitar f2's made by kiron are excellent, and not very expensive. Why dont you start with one and give it a try?
I'm perfectly capable of making a decision, and indeed I wasn't asking for anyone to make a decision on my behalf, but I was asking to what extent one could compare other lenses with Zuikos, and, if you read my post fully, what the compromises might be .
Of course, if one has no experience of alternatives, one's opinion is necessarily less informed and of less use to me than informed opinion.
I can also do without being condescended to.
Thank you darinwc for your answer.
La dee dah
La Dee DAH
What I meant was that the lenses vary widely in price. My best guess on ebay prices: 28mm f3.5 $50 ; Kiron 28mm f2.0 $100; Zuiko 28mm f2.0 $300
The only lens testing I know of comparing these lenses is gary reeses lens tests. I think he liked the Zuiko f2 best, but the kiron tested excellent as well.
But the particular samples will very widely enough that those tests are meaningless.
So ultimately you will have to weigh the price with the perceived value.
If you are OK with plopping down $300, go for it. At least you will never be wanting for the best available.
If $300 hurts, the f3.5 or kiron will be very adequate.
If you occasionally need the extra stop, then push the film or use a support. The f2.8 and f3.5 are both excellent lenses, are cheap and available.
As an prof. photographer, now retired, I recall my move from my Yashica TLR to my longed for Rolleiflex. In my early 20's there was no way I could afford the 2.8F and I opted for the 3.5F Planar. I still have and use the camera. I have never found the need for a faster lens, FOR MY TYPE OF PHOTOGRAPHY. Only you can decide on what you require for your needs. Wide aperture lenses are not necessarily better quality than their smaller aperture counterparts, but if MOST of your photogrphy is to be done in low light situations, then you may need the wider aperture, if you don't want to use a tripod or flash. In short, we don't have enough information about your intended use, so it's impossible to advise further.