OM, I've become a Zuikoholic!

[FTography]

Originally Posted by redisburning

someone want to try to convince me to keep my 28/2?

took it as my only lens on vacation; old glasses RX + dof = impossible to focus indoors. not sure I see any advantage it has over 28/3.5 other than it can reign in DoF when used outside on slooooooow film.

Well, if I had a 28/2.0, I would always find a reason to keep it.

Firstly, it does offer a brighter viewfinder than the slower specimen - albeit the difference might be arguably low compared with the 28/2.8.
If you really want to use it in bright light, an ND will do the trick.
The wider focusing ring of the 2.0 might also feel more comfortable for photographers with larger hands/fingers.

And, as you already have it, holding onto it doesn't seem to be a bad option when considering rising prices for lenses.

Have you considered contact lenses or adjusting diopter lenses in front of the viewfinder? Personally, I like to use contact lenses as I feel it's much more comfortable and practicable than wearing glasses most times.

[Trius]

I would say either upgrade your RX or, as suggested, an eyepiece diopter. If you have a good optometrist, they can help with either.

[FTography]

Originally Posted by Trius

I would say either upgrade your RX or, as suggested, an eyepiece diopter. If you have a good optometrist, they can help with either.

What spoils diopters for me, is that once your eye is off the viewfinder, you will need glasses again.
Unless one wears those ridiculous flip up glasses, it's a pain in the derriere in terms of practicability.

[plummerl]

Originally Posted by redisburning

someone want to try to convince me to keep my 28/2?

took it as my only lens on vacation; old glasses RX + dof = impossible to focus indoors. not sure I see any advantage it has over 28/3.5 other than it can reign in DoF when used outside on slooooooow film.

Just comparing Gary Reese's tests (http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?op...&limitstart=50) of the two lenses would be enough for me to keep my 28/f2. The 28/f2 was generally considered to be the sharpest OM lens, ever.

[Trius]

Originally Posted by FTography

What spoils diopters for me, is that once your eye is off the viewfinder, you will need glasses again.
Unless one wears those ridiculous flip up glasses, it's a pain in the derriere in terms of practicability.

The diopter can complement your spectacles. Your optometrist can help. Just don't expect success with a "doc in the box" chain operation.

[redisburning]

well, I haven't decided to sell yet. I've got it in a for trade ad.

Anyway, I feel like we haven't had any pictures in a while, so here's one of my cat (lol):


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

[CTAPbIU_XPEH_RUSSIA]

[Trius]

LIKE (char)

[Field]

The 28 2.8 has much better contrast than the 3.5. It is worth the upgrade. I don't know if it is a difference in coating or what. I'd love the f2, but since I basically got the f2.8 for free, it is still real nice.

[Trius]

I've had both 3.5 and 2.8. I shot the same subject on the same film (Elitechrome, IIRC,) and decided there wasn't any real difference so I sold the 3.5. I may have had a different version of 3.5, as the contrast was identical. At least in my memory. I don't have the originals at hand to review, and I'm not sure if I posted the results anywhere.

[redisburning]

I've got some shots with the 28/3.5 on acros in broad daylight that are stunning.

sometimes high resolution and moderate contrast is good.

for me the best thing about the 28 is shooting at f2-4, but mostly f2. you can get decent DoF control, whether or not you can get decent processing from CVS is another matter:


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

[Ade-oh]

I recently managed to buy a new Zuiko 35mm F2 and I have to say I'm very pleased with it: sharp with very nice rendering.

[wblynch]

Great photo.

I know for years the 35mm/2 got little respect. As I don't have a 35mm prime I have been looking for either a 2.0 or a 2.8. I guess it was not a popular length for the OM because there are few to be found.

And it seems now the 35/2 has gotten very popular with the digi crowd and the prices are sky high. I've got hope that one will turn up.

[Drago]

The 35 f2 is actually kinda of different lens - yes the contrast is medium and yes it's not the sharpest 35 lens wide open out there, but still reasonably sharp if you have clean copy. If you'r ok with this, then it's a good lens.

[Trius]

The 35/2.8 sold a lot, there normally is a good selection available. I haven't bought one in quite a while, but I never paid a lot, except when I bought one new in the '70s. My impresssion is that the 2.8 is sharper than the 2.0, and somewhat higher contrast. I've thought of getting a 2.0 for the extra stop and the different rendering, but the prices are too high for me to justify that.

[Field]

The 28mm 2.8 shows better contrast in dynamic lighting situations. It is probably multi-coated, where as the 3.5 earlier version may not have as good of coating.

[Ade-oh]

I've got a couple of functional OM Winder 2's which I don't need. If anyone wants to pay the postage, they can have them.

[Trius]

The 2.8 is indeed multi-coated. I can't find a definite answer on the 3.5.

Edit: According to this link, the 3.5 is single coated. I don't know if that source is completely accurate. Olympus had the habit of sometimes releasing an updated version of a lens with MC, but not designating it on the trim ring.

[redisburning]

my 28/3.5 is definitely single coated.

[Trius]

Ken Norton is hosting Gary Reese's extensive OM lens tests. Only SC is mentioned there, as well.

Against my better judgment, I read the test for the 28/2.0. Sigh.

[wblynch]

I have a black-nose 28/3.5 that came in a box-o-junk. It certainly appears to be multi-coated.

It has the early-style one-piece mount. I wonder if any 28/3.5 were made with the two-piece mount?

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Trius

Ken Norton is hosting Gary Reese's extensive OM lens tests. Only SC is mentioned there, as well.

Against my better judgment, I read the test for the 28/2.0. Sigh.

I've had one of these for over a year now but I'm yet to use it!

It says a lot about how uncomfortable I am with this focal length to be able to ignore such a good piece of glass!

[redisburning]

Originally Posted by Trius

Ken Norton is hosting Gary Reese's extensive OM lens tests. Only SC is mentioned there, as well.

Against my better judgment, I read the test for the 28/2.0. Sigh.

if only it were M mount =/

it's fun to play with the DoF but like all SLR wides I find it impossible to focus it in the dark. no one seems to want to buy mine though =/ please excuse the developing; I was on the long end of CVS' chemicals, plus you cant see the scratch that ran down the center 3/4 of all of my negatives on this roll:


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

[Trius]

I would buy the 28/2.0, but I am sending a child to France for 10 months of study. I'll be buying Robusta instead of Arabica, blended instead of single malt for awhile.

[bk1970]

The other day believe it or not...