Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Olympus Zuiko 2.8/28 on FF
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:03 pm    Post subject: Olympus Zuiko 2.8/28 on FF Reply with quote
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33530174@N05/6211116682/sizes/o/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33530174@N05/6059979301/sizes/o/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33530174@N05/6041663921/sizes/o/in/photostream/

for you this lens is a good wide?


PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I wasn't thrilled by my Zuiko 28mm f/2.8 when I had a Canon 5D. The corners are a bit weak.

But I was thrilled by my Zuiko 24mm f/2.8.... Sharp edge to edge, a must have for FF owners.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No, but I have seen worst!

Zuiko 28mm f3.5 is the one to get! Matches or even beats a Zeiss 28mm!


PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
from my experience zuiko 28/2.8 is worst from 28mm OM lenses. it´s acceptable stopped down to f5.6 or f8, but both 28/2 and 28/3.5 which I´ve tried in few copies are better. the slower one is great if you´re tight on budget, otherwise I´d go for fast one - it´s really nice lens.

if you´re just lusting for some wide 24-28 I´d choose that 24/2.8 which dsmlogger talks about. it´s important to get newer version with MCoating as it´s much better than older SC version. also sunshade is a must with these lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Olympus Zuiko 2.8/28 on FF Reply with quote
metallaro1980 wrote:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33530174@N05/6211116682/sizes/o/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33530174@N05/6059979301/sizes/o/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33530174@N05/6041663921/sizes/o/in/photostream/

for you this lens is a good wide?

I wonder why the lower left corner is always soft. Maybe your lens is decentered?
The lens probably has some field curvature too, but that doesn't explain the left/right difference.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
berraneck wrote:
...
if you´re just lusting for some wide 24-28 I´d choose that 24/2.8 which dsmlogger talks about. it´s important to get newer version with MCoating as it´s much better than older SC version. also sunshade is a must with these lenses.


may I ask:
the old 'SC'..is it the one which says: 'Olympus OM-System H.Zuiko Auto-W 1:2.8 f=24mm'?
in which way, and how much, is it worse?
and the new version, does it say: 'MC' on the name ring?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
there are more versions of this lens, but optically there are two (so far I know) - earlier with SC and newer MC. great article with information about all versions and how they differ is here:

http://olypedia.de/Zuiko_Auto-W_1:2%2C8/24_mm

newer MC is stunning lens with enough sharpness for modern FF sensors. it also handles flare quite good, which is important. the earlier SC isn´t special, I would say average 24 from decent manufacturer. I´ve seen some photos from the newer version here on forum made with EOS 1Ds mkIII, you might try to find it... Wink


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you like 24mm, go for the Sigma version, it is really excellent when stopped down.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
berraneck wrote:
there are more versions of this lens, but optically there are two (so far I know) - earlier with SC and newer MC. great article with information about all versions and how they differ is here:

http://olypedia.de/Zuiko_Auto-W_1:2%2C8/24_mm

newer MC is stunning lens with enough sharpness for modern FF sensors. it also handles flare quite good, which is important. the earlier SC isn´t special, I would say average 24 from decent manufacturer. I´ve seen some photos from the newer version here on forum made with EOS 1Ds mkIII, you might try to find it... Wink


Berranek thank you very much for the link, what a great page! According to the linked article there are 4 versions, OM typical:
1 'silver nose' - single coated
2 'non-silver nose' - single coated ( with possible exceptions of multicoated lenses )
3 MC - multicoated, and
4 latest version multicoated but not saying 'MC' any more.
but it also says that all are identical in construction and that the coating differs.

This made me wonder: If it is true that all versions are constructed the same, only differ in coating, isn't it surprising that their optical performance it that different that one is considered 'average' and the other 'stunning'? Yes, I have read similar judgement on the net before, but nevertheless now I wonder if the strong difference in valuation could be an internet myth, created because in case of the famous OM 1.4/50 there is a definite quality difference between the early single coated silver nose and the latest MC version?
Berranek may I ask, is your valuation of 'average' and 'stunning' based on personal experience with both versions?

Last edited by kuuan on Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:45 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had the opportunity to quickly compare MC and non-MC version of Zuiko 2.8/24. MC version had very slightly better contrast, but non-MC version was seemingly sharper. But it can be copy variation. Anyway, both lenses should share same optical scheme.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
I had the opportunity to quickly compare MC and non-MC version of Zuiko 2.8/24. MC version had very slightly better contrast, but non-MC version was seemingly sharper. But it can be copy variation. Anyway, both lenses should share same optical scheme.


very interesting, thank you very much BRunner.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Olympus Zuiko 2.8/28 on FF Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
metallaro1980 wrote:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33530174@N05/6211116682/sizes/o/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33530174@N05/6059979301/sizes/o/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33530174@N05/6041663921/sizes/o/in/photostream/

for you this lens is a good wide?

I wonder why the lower left corner is always soft. Maybe your lens is decentered?
The lens probably has some field curvature too, but that doesn't explain the left/right difference.


i don't know...i bought on ebay for 70euro
but i think that it has not been disassembled by someone


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 6:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have Zuiko 24 f2,8 based on serial number it is SC version without silver nose. I can say only that the lens is sharp from edge to edge on Eos 5. Otherwise there is quite disturbing vignetting at f2,8 but sharpness is there. The lens does not like direct sunlight and as soon as you have the sun shining into the lens there is lens iris on photo. Otherwise very good lens.

F5,6


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:
This made me wonder: If it is true that all versions are constructed the same, only differ in coating, isn't it surprising that their optical performance it that different that one is considered 'average' and the other 'stunning'? Yes, I have read similar judgement on the net before, but nevertheless now I wonder if the strong difference in valuation could be an internet myth, created because in case of the famous OM 1.4/50 there is a definite quality difference between the early single coated silver nose and the latest MC version?
Berranek may I ask, is your valuation of 'average' and 'stunning' based on personal experience with both versions?
I´ve tried both personally and my experience is same as of my 2 friends, which use OM stuff. For proper evaluation I think the comparison should be made with few copies, but who does it...

The older SC isn´t bad and when you don´t shoot in backlight the difference is pretty small - but that´s the problem, in most situations you can´t avoid light sources in shot (or you simply want them in the image). It looses contrast and also sharpness suffers, which is much smaller problem with the newer MC. Don´t get me wrong, the older SC is surely nice lens, but in comparison to other manufacturer´s 24 like nikon/yashica/canon it´s just average (I´ve tried also breechlock and FDn Canons and Nikkor). I would say that newer MC is one of the best 24s made in those times (I am careful about this statement as I didn´t try modern 24s like Nikkor 24/1.4 or Sony/Zeiss 24/2).

I´ve made some nice shots with older SC and they´re very acceptable on 24x30cm or 30x40cm prints, but images from the newer MC are simply more crisp (but.. to be honest, my girlfriend asked me where´s the difference when I showed her 2 same captures made with these 2 lenses... Smile ).


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dfujevec wrote:
I have Zuiko 24 f2,8 based on serial number it is SC version without silver nose. I can say only that the lens is sharp from edge to edge on Eos 5. Otherwise there is quite disturbing vignetting at f2,8 but sharpness is there. The lens does not like direct sunlight and as soon as you have the sun shining into the lens there is lens iris on photo. Otherwise very good lens.

F5,6


Good photo and I like your post very much Wink
because recently I bought a copy of an early silver nose, could not resist, it came in minty condition with original caps, original hood in original case for a cheap price Smile

berraneck wrote:
kuuan wrote:
This made me wonder: If it is true that all versions are constructed the same, only differ in coating, isn't it surprising that their optical performance it that different that one is considered 'average' and the other 'stunning'? Yes, I have read similar judgement on the net before, but nevertheless now I wonder if the strong difference in valuation could be an internet myth, created because in case of the famous OM 1.4/50 there is a definite quality difference between the early single coated silver nose and the latest MC version?
Berranek may I ask, is your valuation of 'average' and 'stunning' based on personal experience with both versions?
I´ve tried both personally and my experience is same as of my 2 friends, which use OM stuff. For proper evaluation I think the comparison should be made with few copies, but who does it...

The older SC isn´t bad and when you don´t shoot in backlight the difference is pretty small - but that´s the problem, in most situations you can´t avoid light sources in shot (or you simply want them in the image). It looses contrast and also sharpness suffers, which is much smaller problem with the newer MC. Don´t get me wrong, the older SC is surely nice lens, but in comparison to other manufacturer´s 24 like nikon/yashica/canon it´s just average (I´ve tried also breechlock and FDn Canons and Nikkor). I would say that newer MC is one of the best 24s made in those times (I am careful about this statement as I didn´t try modern 24s like Nikkor 24/1.4 or Sony/Zeiss 24/2).

I´ve made some nice shots with older SC and they´re very acceptable on 24x30cm or 30x40cm prints, but images from the newer MC are simply more crisp (but.. to be honest, my girlfriend asked me where´s the difference when I showed her 2 same captures made with these 2 lenses... Smile ).


thank you very much Berraneck, your ample explanation and experience makes it very clear!


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:
thank you very much Berraneck, your ample explanation and experience makes it very clear!
you´re welcome! I hope this information won´t read too many users and they don´t attack ebay to raise prices of MC version Smile


PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
for me it is not bad
http://www.2shared.com/file/j2YSDCeh/IMG_1826.html


PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Your free download limit is over.
Wait 185 minutes
Slow download speed
Low download priority

.. well, I would suggest to upload pictures to web like imageshack.us - thanks! Smile


PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
http://andreaverdi.altervista.org/IMG_1826.CR2


PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have Olympus Zuiko 28/2, 28/2.8, and 28/3.5 lenses. I can't agree with posters saying the 3.5 version is better than the 2.8 one. Yes, it's sharper wide open (at 3.5) than the f/2.8 is at 2.8. At f/4, corners may be slightly sharper in the slower version. However, stop them down to f/5.6, and they are equally sharp, with f/2.8 having advantage in colors, contrast and flare control due to better coatings (MC). It's up to you to decide what's more important: performance wide open or stopped down. I personally shoot wides mostly stopped to f/5.6-11.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
my impression:
it find the olympus a good wide angle but I like more my Flektogon 2.4/35


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:

Berranek thank you very much for the link, what a great page!

+1


PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Full Resolution: http://www.flickr.com/photos/33530174@N05/6455797709/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1