I've got both a 35/2 and a 28/2. The 28, which I h ave thanks to Tom
Scales, is sharp enough to shave with. It is, in fact, the sharpest lens
I've ever owned, and I've owned a lot.
The 35, however just doesn't do it for me. I'm with you, it's a normal, and
I"d love to love it, but it just isn't that good. It's not all that sharp,
and is a little bit flat. I really really wish it was better.
I've never had the 2.8 or 3.5 versions.
I would recommend, strangly, the 28-48 zoom. I've used mine a lot, and it's
better than the 35/2. I really really enjoy that lens.
Bill Pearce
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Norton" <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] Opinions and images wanted: OM Zuiko 35mm f/2.0
>I have a personal love of the 35mm focal length because it acts as my
> "normal" lens. But I wouldn't call it a wide-angle. Common mid-range zooms
> were 35-70mm which really are just covering the range from "short-normal
> to
> long-normal" 35mm isn't wide and 70mm isn't telephoto.
>
> 28mm is a wide-angle not just because it's shorter than a 35mm, but
> because
> the image takes on a different look. 28mm is nice because it's a
> wide-angle, but it doesn't distort the images from subject proximity like
> wider-angles do. 24mm is distinctly well into the wide-angle range and
> has
> extensive subject proximity distortion. 21mm is like the 24mm, only
> wider.
> Beyond that point, the lenses tend to lose most of their usefulness.
>
> A 35/2 is a really nice lens, and is a bit better in use than the
> specifications indicate. But there are issues. The 35/2 is a bear to
> focus
> on a 2-series focus screen. Perfect on a 1-series, but somehow it doesn't
> match up well with the ultra-fine microprism 2-series screen and it
> doesn't
> "snap" into focus.
>
> The 28/2 is possibly the most useful true wide-angle Zuiko F2 lens. It is
> also extremely sharp. If you've used the Zuiko 28/3.5, trust me when I
> say
> that the difference is as night and day as they come. Even saying that
> they
> share the same focal-length is stretching it.
>
> My own preference to the 35/2.8 is several fold:
> 1. I own one.
> 2. Bokeh is classic, uniform, linear and totally natural at all apertures.
> 3. Small and lightweight.
> 4. 49mm filter-ring size.
> 5. Focusing ease on 2-series screens.
> 6. Contrast of the silvernosed version is perfect for B&W and Velvia.
>
> I made the mistake of selling my original 35/2.8. Tom Scales, when
> cleaning
> out the last of his "All Things Olympus" called me up and asked me if I'd
> like a silvernosed 35/2.8. Do dogs bark? Within a week I felt like I had
> returned home.
>
> I've contemplated getting an F2 lens in the 24-35mm range, but figure that
> my money is best spent on other things--like film! It's a wonderful
> feeling
> knowing that you really do have everything you need and the only wants are
> just wants.
>
> AG
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.2/2214 - Release Date: 07/02/09
05:54:00
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|