OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ? - FM Forums

Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 end

Archive 2009 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

CheshireCat
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

I am in the market for a 21mm wide and the Olympus OM 3.5/21 Auto-W is a fraction of the price of the Distagon 21 (even the old version in C/Y mount).

I can live with f/3.5 and I'll use the lens 95% for landscape stopped down for maximum sharpness, but wide-open performance is also important for occasional night shots.

Any sample, opinion, and comparison to the Distagon 2.8/21 is appreciated.
Thanks in advance !

Dec 06, 2009 at 01:58 AM

Ed Sawyer
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

It's an excellent choice. Easily the smallest/lightest 21 ever. Good contrast, quite sharp. Good wide open too. I have lens tests from Modern Photography posted at www.edsawyer.com/lenstests/ - including the OM 21/3.5.

I have one, have considered selling it since I have the OM 21/2 and I hardly use the 21/3.5 anymore.. it's such a little gem.

-Ed

Dec 06, 2009 at 03:06 AM

johnahill
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

What about throwing the Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 Skopar into the mix as well.

Dec 06, 2009 at 03:24 PM

wolfloid
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

Any reason why Canon's own 17-40mm f4 shouldn't be considered? It's relatively inexpensive, has the flexibility of various focal lengths, autofcuses, has full electronic connections with Canon and it's distortion can be corrected in Canon's own software. Just a thought.

Dec 06, 2009 at 03:56 PM

alexandre
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

wolfloid wrote:
Any reason why Canon's own 17-40mm f4 shouldn't be considered? It's relatively inexpensive, has the flexibility of various focal lengths, autofcuses, has full electronic connections with Canon and it's distortion can be corrected in Canon's own software. Just a thought.

Corner sharpness (main drawback), size, cost, and 1/3 stop darker (duh) comes to mind. If I thought about it I'd find some other reasons. But it reaches 17mm, which is very nice to have.

Dec 06, 2009 at 05:06 PM

wolfloid
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

I have the Olympus 21/3.5, and while it is small and excellent from f5.6, it too has weak corners at f3.5. Is the Canon really weaker wide open at 21mm?

The review I read from 16:9 (Cogitech, Paul?) for the 17/40 seemed to make very little of corner blur. Indeed it seemed to do pretty well in the comparison with the best of all at that FL the Zeiss 21/2.8.

Dec 06, 2009 at 06:12 PM

Nordlys
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

I've been using the Oly 21 3.5 on my 5DII for a few months now and just love the thing! It's tiny, weighs practically nothing and I love what I get from it. True, the corners are quite weak at 3.5 but it's not the end of the world for me

I've got loads and loads of samples but here are some faves!

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Dec 06, 2009 at 07:18 PM

RustyBug
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

Sean,

LOVE the cobblestones !!

I'd love to see that shot tried on a 17-40L

Corner sharpness (main drawback), size, cost, and 1/3 stop darker (duh) comes to mind. If I thought about it I'd find some other reasons. But it reaches 17mm, which is very nice to have.

For LESS than the cost of the 17-40L ... with it's above issues, I've got an Oly 21 3.5 AND a Tamron 17-35 2.8-4.0 AND money left over for another Oly i.e. 24 2.8, 28 3.5, etc.

I'm not bashing the 17-40L ... it was my intended direction originally and it is what it is. BUT, with a little creative thinking ... you can do better (imo). The Tamron will never make the oooh-ahhhhh, All-Time Hall of Fame, but the 17mm does get you that extra width when you need it (FF coverage), plus some AF for those times when you might want it, and the convenince of the zoom when you need that.

I use my 17-35 Tamron much less than my 21 3.5, since my 21 is usally wide enough and I usually have the time to play with the Oly manual glass ... but I won't sell the Tamron, and it's always in my bag. I had a job to shoot some interiors ... out came the Tamron for the 17mm. I also have the Tamron 17-50 2.8, which I REALLY like (but it's a Nikon 'crop' lens), so when I upped my game to the 1D MK II ... the Tamron 17-35 was an obvious choice to me ... AND I've kept my 17-50 2.8 to go with my D70s as my small rig.

I've tested the 17-35 against both my Oly Primes and my Z/Y 35-70 ... and it holds its own until you get deep in the extreme corners ... very surprised at it's actual performance, since it is a 3rd party zoom. I was expecting it to be noticeably worse. As such, it make a very nice 'safety net' lens ... which lets me play with the primes and not feel like I have totally sacrificed 17mm, AF or Zoom for when I need them.

Go for the Oly's ... worse that can happen is that you'll fall in love with them.

BTW ... check out the Oly 'stars'

Edited on Dec 07, 2009 at 01:08 AM · View previous versions

Dec 06, 2009 at 07:28 PM

TWoK
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

The CV 20/3.5 is the logical choice.

Dec 06, 2009 at 11:56 PM

jpeter
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

I was interseted in bettering my 17-40 canon and tested the 21 olympus along side of it. I really could not see a performance increase to merit purchase of the olympus. I also tested the canon against 2 copies of the Tokina 17mm prime. Canon was better. Recently got a Ze21 ... and I am pleased with that.

I guess I can just say not to write off the canon zoom as sub par.
If looking to buy a 17 and 21, compared to the zoom, you are not really saving any money with bargain Alt primes. Not to mention not having the 24 to 40 range.

jp

Edited on Dec 07, 2009 at 01:54 AM · View previous versions

Dec 07, 2009 at 12:08 AM

alexandre
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

jpeter wrote:
I guess I can just say not to write off the canon zoom as sub par.
If looking to buy a 17 and 21, compared to the zoom, you are not really saving any money with bargain Alt primes. Not to mention not having the 24 to 40 range.
jp

Speaking for myself here:
I never said 17-40L is sub-par, it's a very capable lens.
And obviously every prime has the inherent drawback that it's not a zoom

Dec 07, 2009 at 12:31 AM

RustyBug
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

TWoK wrote:
The CV 20/3.5 is the logical choice.

It was under heavy consideration as well ...

Dec 07, 2009 at 01:08 AM

Mr Joe
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

Having owned 3 copies of the 17-40 I will say flat out that it is sub-par in the corners. The Oly 21/3.5 is superb on the original 5d, but doesn't hold up as well on the 5d II. Still pretty good, but makes me want to try the ZE 21.

Dec 07, 2009 at 04:02 AM

RustyBug
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

Mr Joe wrote:The Oly 21/3.5 ... doesn't hold up as well on the 5d II.

So how does the 17-40L hold up on the 5D II ??

Dec 07, 2009 at 04:48 AM

AbramG
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

Im very very interested in the CV 20mm SL. I want to get my hands on one for sure. That and the 40mm f/2

Dec 07, 2009 at 04:50 AM

Ed Sawyer
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

Frankly, from what I have seen the OM 21/3.5 beats up on the Voigtlander 20/3.5

Dec 07, 2009 at 06:09 AM

TWoK
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

Ed Sawyer wrote:
Frankly, from what I have seen the OM 21/3.5 beats up on the Voigtlander 20/3.5

Having had both I disagree. They're pretty equal with the Voigtlander having more contrast, especially wide open. Both are good lenses, but seeing as you can't get a OM 21/3.5 for under $400 these days I'd much rather get a new, auto-apeture lens for $100 more.

Dec 07, 2009 at 06:15 AM

Empire
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

TWoK wrote:
Ed Sawyer wrote:
Frankly, from what I have seen the OM 21/3.5 beats up on the Voigtlander 20/3.5

Having had both I disagree. They're pretty equal with the Voigtlander having more contrast, especially wide open. Both are good lenses, but seeing as you can't get a OM 21/3.5 for under $400 these days I'd much rather get a new, auto-apeture lens for $100 more.

I've seen heaps of Oly's go for between $250-320 lately..

Personally I love mine. Punches my old 20-35/2.8L square in the teef

Dec 07, 2009 at 08:34 AM

wolfloid
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

Just a reality check: this is what SLR.com says in their test of the Tamron 17-35: some of the worst corner performance we've seen in a lens to date. Wide open at wide angle, the corners of the frame are just unusably soft, unless you're looking for extreme softness to use as a special effect. The corner softness does improve as you zoom towards the 35mm end of its range, but is still very pronounced.

They also say: Full-frame camera owners would be well-advised to look elsewhere and/or save their pennies for a lens like the excellent Canon 17-40mm F4L optic, if they're on the Canon platform.

I have no experience of the lens, but was interested to get some more objective opinion.

I've also been looking at some examples of the Canon 17-40 on line, and what I see seems to be pretty much as good as the Oly 21/3.5 that I use - only a little sharper wide open. The great advantage of the Oly and the CV 20/3.5 is their size, and with the new Canon mount CV, open aperture metering is also included.

As for the remark about the cobblestones on the above picture, as far as I can tell the Canon 17-40 would do just as well, providing the lens was appropriately stopped down. Why all this hyperbole?

Dec 07, 2009 at 08:49 AM

PeaktoPeek
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

At one point I had both the OM 3.5/21mm and 17-40L and I found them to be very comparable as far as performance. If I didn't have either, I would be more than happy with the Zuiko at the lower cost. However, since they were close in performance stopped down I sold the 21 and decided to use my OM 2.8/24mm alternatively. Its faster and a better performer for me. But the 17-40 has been too versatile to give up, its just works to well despite its flaws. Its my primary landscape lens, and to replace what it gives me would cost quite a bit.
Paul

Dec 07, 2009 at 10:44 AM

TWoK
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #21 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

Yeah, wolfloid hit the nail on the head. I will take the CV above all else for the auto-apeture, CPU chip and size. I loved my Oly 21/3.5 and Nikkor 20/4 AI too, but the CV is so damn convenient.

Dec 07, 2009 at 10:50 AM

pixelpix
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #22 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

I had 3 and gave up on them in favour of the Oly 24. Much better IQ with sharper corners, heaps less CA and no dreaded Oly 21 "red ring" flare.

Dec 07, 2009 at 02:08 PM

RustyBug
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #23 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

wolfloid ... thanks for the added info about the Tamron.

I must just not see it that badly, since I'm shooting on the 1D MK II 1.25x FOV. I do notice the extreme corners are softer than my 35-70, but it still works as an augment to my Oly's 21mm 3.5, 24mm 2.8, 28mm 3.5 and my C/Y 35-70 when manual focus or 21mm (on a 1.25x) doesn't fit the bill. Limited application, I guess.

Dec 07, 2009 at 04:42 PM

CheshireCat
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #24 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

Thanks for all the comments and images, I really appreciate any single one.
Sean, I have also checked your site and photostream, great shots !

I must confess that while before I was torn between the Distagon and the Oly, now that more lenses are in the arena, I am more puzzled.
But this is just fine: the more the gladiators the better the winner !

By the way, I forgot to say that the arena is a 5D Mark II.. so corner performance cannot be ignored.

I did not consider a zoom like the EF 17-40L, because I assumed it could not match a prime. Perhaps I am wrong and I've never tested one personally, but examining raw files on a 5D2 I am not happy with the performance at the wide end even at f/8. Furthermore I just need a ultrawide because I already have a C/Y Distagon 28/2.8 and a Summicron-R 35/2 (and I don't mind changing lenses). I love the Distagon rendering for landscapes.
If the Oly is going to perform like the 17-40L at 21mm f/8 then it is definitely not an option !

I think that rules out also the Tamron 17-35.

I hear also that the Oly 21/2 is better than the 21/3.5 little brother but it is almost double the price and not as compact. It is also more difficult to find. Performance is probably due to floating elements, but is it so much better at infinite ?

The Oly 24 may be optically better than the 21, but having the Distagon 28 I need something a little wider than 24.

I didn't know about the Voigtlander 20 SL II, so this is definitely something to check. What about the EOS mount ? I don't need AF, so the price must be justified by better performance.

Of course the Distagon 21/2.8 ZE is still an option, but is it so much better than all the contenders ? It is not if we talk about price, compactness, and probably distortion.

Thanks again for your help !

Dec 08, 2009 at 12:00 AM

Mike Ganz
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #25 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ?

I use multiple Oly's on my 5D2...the 18/3.5, 21/3.5, and the 24/2.8. All are excellent performers. With regard to the 17-40L, IMO its a stellar performer on the 5D2, even in the corners. The below image was shot with the 17-40L at 17mm...EXIF is ISO 100, 0.8-sec shutter speed, and f/22 aperture using hyperfocal distance focusing. The full-size file is nice and sharp from front to back and edge to edge:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Dec 08, 2009 at 12:30 AM


FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end