According to one of the Oly references, the 28/2 MC is supposed to be one of the sharpest lenses produced by Olympus. I took a gamble on one last evening because the price was very good and the deal included the hood, case, caps, protective filter, etc. Basically, the same old description...excellent, like-new condition. I do own the 28/3.5 but like I said the price for the f/2 was too good to let slip by. For those of you that have this lens, do you have any real-world reviews? The on-line test results look good when used on an Olympus film body...just curious as to the results when used on a dslr. Thanks.
I just got mine a week ago as well, and I like it. Unfortunately I havent had time to fire off more than a few test frames since I got it. But I liked what I saw
I had one recently and just sold it in the US, without case.
28mm is an important focal length for me as I like an effective 46mm for a normal lens on my XSi. Additionally, my Oly 28/3.5 while a great performer, is slow enough at f/3.5 that it becomes hard to focus with the Haoda microprism screen. As near distances are important to me, I have been lead to believe lenses with floating elements are necessary to retain the lens qualities in the close range.
I have the Leica 28mm Elmarit, which satisfies the above requirements and will eventually be a wide angle solution on a 5D II. My interest was to search for a more cost effective 28mm solution.
I used the Oly 28/2.0 with a HappypageHK adapter. Wide open, on the XSi, there was the pink cast that I have been seeing with the fast 50s I've been testing. This mostly went away by f/4. The Oly 28/3.5 had none. Then, there was the color fringing (Direct TV dish with red on one side and purple on the other) that was reduced, when stopped down but still present until f/8 or so. The Oly 28/3.5 had none.
The lens itself was clearly not up to the 28/3.5. To by fair, when there is an adapter involved, performance could be effected by the adapter, although I used the same adapter to test both lenses. The 28/3.5 was meticulously infinity adjusted, as I do with all single assembly lenses. The 28/2.0 appeared to be focusing to infinity, but I didn't examine as the only way to adjust was to modify the adapter itself.
That's my experience. I don't know if I keep any test photos, but I will look.
I now will be receiving a Minolta 28/2.0 to try, as I have developed a good conversion method for Minolta lenses.
A good copy of the Oly 28/2 is excellent for full frame use. I'd say Jim had an adapter issue, or bad copy. I never saw a pink cast with mine , on a SLR/c, which is very picky about lenses. I did see a yellowish warm cast on my Oly 28/3.5 though. Paul (Cogitech's) latest pics from Japan show it pretty well. I also found the Oly 28/2 to be very useable from wide open, but the 28/3.5 needs to be stopped down to at leaast f/5.6 - preferrably f/11.
Thanks all. I've also been using happypagehk adapters on my other Oly's without any issues. The only issue that I had with a happypagehk concerned an M42 mount...the inside diameter was too narrow and would bind up the lens when focusing towards infinity. A little work with a drill and grinding stone fixed that.
I should have the 28/2 later this week...I'll give it a try on my 5D with one of my present adapters. Maybe Jim's issues werre an aberration.
Just my experience but I was not overly impressed by the 28 3.5. I found it to be an alright, decent lens and very good value for the money but not up to say a Zeiss C/Y 28 2.8 which was razor sharp just one stop down(and impressively sharp even wide open) in the center. The 28 3.5 was more even in sharpness across the frame then the Zeiss but never gets close to the actual central sharpness of the Zeiss. But then, you could pick up 4 - 28 3.5's for the price of the Zeiss at the time. I tried two copies of the 28 3.5, one of which was actually sharper in the corners at F8 versus the Zeiss. I think the OLY 28 3.5 is one of those lenses which a myth forms around simply because it is so good compared to what one pays for it. Regarding the OLY 28 2.8, I had one like new copy which never even came close to matching the OLY 3.5 version. That could be sample variation, I don't know.
Buyers expectation might be part of it. I see there is a nice looking 3.5 copy and a OL flash on the Seattle Craigslist for $30 today.
I am assuming the 2.0 version cost more than the 2.8 version and that the 2.8 version cost more than 3.5 version when purchased new. But do people really think the 3.5 is the best of the three?
I agree, Tariq. I had both the OM 28/3.5 and C/Y 28/2.8 for a time and found the Zeiss to offer much more pleasing colour (I like the cooler cast) and sharpness (except in the extreme corners). The one thing the 28/3.5 had over the Zeiss was a more even sharpness across the frame. In the end I wanted only one lens at 28mm, so I sold the OM.
I wonder if we'll see the Zeiss pull even further ahead on a higher resolution camera like the 5D2. My assumption is we will.
I agree with Tariq and Steven about the Zeiss vs. the Oly 28/3.5, but it was this very assessment that caused me to sell two copies of the Zeiss.
At the 28mm focal length, I would much rather have a lens that resolves well enough for a 20" x 30" print across the entire frame than a lens that is bleedingly sharp in the centre and then only resolves 4"x6" quality in the extreme corners.
The relative differences in sharpness from centre to corner will only be exacerbated by shooting it on a 5D MkII, IMO.
Paul's (pdmphoto) comment about the yellowish cast took me a bit by surprise, as I find Olys in general to have very little cast either way. Any cast seen in my recent Japan photos could be more rightly attributed to the custom tone curves that I have applied to the RAW files (and possibly inaccurate WB).
Looking forward to seeing some results from the Oly 28/2, though. I've read enough hearsay about it.
StevenPA wrote:
I wonder if we'll see the Zeiss pull even further ahead on a higher resolution camera like the 5D2. My assumption is we will.
I agree with that prediction. I also understand that not everyone prefers the color and contrast of the Zeiss. In general, Zeiss and Olympus are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to color and contrast rendition. I'm pretty sure the OLY 28 3.5 was never offered in a MC version, the 2.8 being the MC version. Too bad. As far as subtle contrast and color go, I find the MC Olympus lenses to be the sweet spot. I have never tried the OLY 28 2.0 MC and would love to try one some day.
Many of us have seen enough lenses that we now know multi-coating when we see it. Agreed?
Well, I'm pretty sure I can tell at this point, so let me offer this observation.
My 21/3.5 is single-coated. For sure. It is a silver-nose version with the ?.Zuiko designation (we all know the ?.Zuikos are single-coated, right).
Anyway, it looks single-coated. When looking at the light reflected from its surface, there is simply one tone; beigy/browny-yellow.
Now, I've had plenty of MC Zuikos as well. Looking at them, the multiple coatings are obvious. The reflected light has various combinations of multiple tones of green, red, blue, yellow, brown, etc.
Finally, and this is the point; When I look at my Zuiko 28/3.5, it "looks" multi-coated to me. No, it does not have the MC designation, but neither do any of the late model multi-coated 50/1.4s, 28/2.8s, etc. etc.
So, they say the 28/3.5 was never made multi-coated, but I'm 99% sure mine is.
cogitech wrote:
So, they say the 28/3.5 was never made multi-coated, but I'm 99% sure mine is.
I'm not so sure about that(and it could be that one element is MC, not all) because when I had my copies of the 28 3.5(both late versions) and did a number of tests and comparisons to other 28's which were multicoated(including the OLY 28 2.8, Nikkor 28 2.0, Zeiss 28 2.8), even using post production techniques to alter contrast and color, it was obvious that the OLY 3.5 version had slightly more veiling glare and a lack of color density compared to the others. That difference I observed, though subtle, was in fact why I ended up selling all of my OLY 28 3.5 versions.
cogitech wrote:
Finally, and this is the point; When I look at my Zuiko 28/3.5, it "looks" multi-coated to me. No, it does not have the MC designation, but neither do any of the late model multi-coated 50/1.4s, 28/2.8s, etc. etc. So, they say the 28/3.5 was never made multi-coated, but I'm 99% sure mine is.
Interesting! What colours are you seeing? It's my understanding that Olympus started adding the "MC" designation when they were transitioning their lenses to multi-coated versions, and then dropped the designation when it was obvious in the industry that everything was multi-coated anyway.
As we know the 28/3.5 was an early non-MC lens, it seems only logical that Olympus would want to add the "MC" designation to the lens if in fact it received the coatings. I'm sure it was a bigtime marketing thing, though I wasn't into photography at the time to really know for sure. I'm not doubting what you're seeing (okay, maybe a bit). Pics?
StevenPA wrote:
As we know the 28/3.5 was an early non-MC lens, it seems only logical that Olympus would want to add the "MC" designation to the lens if in fact it received the coatings. I'm sure it was a bigtime marketing thing, though I wasn't into photography at the time to really know for sure. I'm not doubting what you're seeing (okay, maybe a bit). Pics?
I'm pretty sure the 28 f3.5 was out of production (replaced by the 28 f2.8) before Olympus ever considered adding multi-coating to it.
Mike, I'm satring at a lab test of all the Zuiko lenses (found somewhere on line.)
It shows the 28/2 to be slightly sharper overall than the 2.8, both center & edge. However, it also rates it as having "moderate" barrel distortion, whereas the 2.8 has "mild" distortion.
It says the f/2 also has very high vignetting at wide open, but almost none by 2.8.
additional notes:
"Notes: Remarkable contrast at larger apertures, high resolution at expense of contrast stopped down, with moderately low to moderate contrast by f/16. Remarkable performance at f/4. One of the sharpest Zuiko lenses."
------------------------------------------------------
This test also shows very clearly how superior many of the later Zuiko versions are to the early ones, which is probably why some folks are knocked-out by their 24/2.8 and 28/3.5's.
I had 2 copies of the OL28 3.5 - one was definatley a different coating from the other and looked to me to be multi coating. I also have the CZ 28 mm 2.8 and although it's center resolution is legendary the corners are not in the same league and the OL's are better. IMO the CZ28mm 2.8 is one of the most overated alt lenses out there. If I get a 5DII I'll be going with the Leica 28mm ROM for 28mm.
shirozina wrote:
I had 2 copies of the OL28 3.5 - one was definatley a different coating from the other and looked to me to be multi coating. I also have the CZ 28 mm 2.8 and although it's center resolution is legendary the corners are not in the same league and the OL's are better. IMO the CZ28mm 2.8 is one of the most overated alt lenses out there. If I get a 5DII I'll be going with the Leica 28mm ROM for 28mm.
..and at four times the price of the CZ 28, the Leica 28 ROM may be one of the most overpriced lenses out there. Love to try one though.
Cableaddict wrote:
"Notes: Remarkable contrast at larger apertures, high resolution at expense of contrast stopped down, with moderately low to moderate contrast by f/16. Remarkable performance at f/4. One of the sharpest Zuiko lenses."
That website is what prompted me to try the 28/2.0 in the first place. In my mind, lenses that are close to their optimum at 1 or 2 stops closed down are the ones to use in stopped down mode on EOS cameras. Case in point, the Leica 28mm Elmarit. It maybe unfair to compare others to the Leica, but the Oly 28/2.0, besides my above comments, was less contrasty, and less sharp in the corners.
I did find some test shots, and in light of the fact an adapter was in between the camera and lens, I maybe overly critical of the Oly 28/2.0. It performs good, but the difference between it and the Elmarit is noticable to me on the XSi.
