I'm thinking of picking up a 24mm lens to get a good manual focus wide angle on my 5D.

I was looking at two versions: The Olympus 24 f/2.8 and the Nikon 24 f/2.8 AiS. I'm looking at them because they're both < $150 used.

Now, under normal circumstances, I would probably have just picked up the Nikon, got a cheap adapter and called it a day, but people seem to be talking about the Olympus lenses with high praise. (including a review comparing the 24 f/2.8 favorably to the Canon 24 f/1.4L) So, I'm curious if the Olympus lens is a better performer in comparison to the Nikon lens.

As an aside, how difficult are Olympus to Canon mount adapters to procure?

I haven't used the Nikon 24/2.8 to compare, but I can highly recommend the Oly 24/2.8.

This lens has very high resolving power unusually uniformly across the frame. Stopped down to f/8, the lens outresolves my 5D's sensor (producing moiré artifacts) all the way to the corners. Wide open, the center still outresolves my 5D out to at least the edges in the narrower direction; the corners still have decent resolving power, but the lens exhibits strong streaky coma that washes out the contrast towards the edges (this lens won't do well with, e.g., tree branches against a bright sky in the corners at large apertures). This coma is mostly gone by f/5.6. The lens also has moderate vignetting that is still noticeable until f/8. Flare resistance is very good: with the sun in the frame, there is some slight veiling haze, but no pronounced flare spots. The lens shows a tiny amount of red/blue CA fringing on high contrast transitions.

OM/EOS adapters are easy to get (on, e.g., ebay), with prices starting around $15 for a cheap but usable one (and up to ~$60 for very nice focus confirm ones); the larger register distance for OM means the adapter is thicker and easier to work with than Nikon/EOS adapter.

I'll bet the Nikon has less vingetting. Both are good choices.

Nikon 28f2.8 AIS is the better choice over both 24s
-Jim

Not if you really, really need a 24.

I haven't used either lens, but the previous comments bring up a issue that you might want to consider. OM>EOS adapters are easy to find. I've had several, from cheap versions to more pricey ones, and I've never had a significant issue. Nikon>EOS adapters on the other hand are a different matter. The cheap adapters tend to be less pleasant to use. The locking mechanism allows a certain amount of play in lens rotation that I found annoying to the point I sold my Nikon mount lenses. There are now more expensive 'Pro' quality adapters that have a superior mechanism and work fine, but the price is ~$85+. If price is a factor the OM>EOS gives 'more bang for the buck'

I'd get the lens that is best and deal with adapters later. Can't imagine getting the 2nd best lens 'cause the adapter is cheaper or easier. I've never had any issues with a Nikon adapter.

I didn't suggest that the OP should buy a second rate lens. I'm suggesting that he should factor in the price of a decent adapter for the Nikon, if that's the direction he decides to go. I'm glad that you haven't had an issue with your Nikon adapters, but of the 4 I've owned, 3 had issues. Only one without issues was the $90 happypagehk, so IMO at least as far as Nikon adapters are concerned, you get what you pay for.

I have 5 cheap Nikon adapters (1 for each Nikon lens I Have). I notice the play, but it doesn't affect my focusing or use of the lens in any dramatic way and I use some heavier lenses.

The difference in price between the Nikon and Olympus lenses is about $30, with the Olympus being more expensive and coming with caps. I'm leaning toward the Olympus because it's smaller and lighter (each by almost 1/2) and I don't have screw around looking for a lens cap, but I'm still unsure.

I like my MC Oly 24 f2.8 and have the metal hood for it. Doesn't take up much space at all. A tiny gem, IMO. Tests well on the 16-9 site:
http://tinyurl.com/ycuezex

Go for the Oly, it's a world-beater for the price/value/size combination.

Speaking of which, I have a nice one available for sale if you are interested...

-Ed

I think I'll go for the Olympus (sorry Ed, but your asking price for the 24 is more than I wanted to spend. It's $140 at KEH). The only thing I have to reconcile is whether the 24 f/2.8 is worth using over my 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 (which I really like).

However, I think I'll hold off on the purchase for a few weeks while I wait for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 and possibly get myself a new tripod.

I've got two of the Oly 24 2.8's (sorry no Nikon at this FL), as well as a pair of the Oly 21 3.5's / Nikon 20 2.8 AIS that I've been comparing and the Oly 28 3.5 / Nikon 28 2.8 AIS that I've been comparing also.

Many people point out the positive aspects of Oly's sharpness & distortion, and how well it did in the 16-9 shootout (all good), but the most significant thing I noticed about the Oly's is their color palette. I, like many others, definitely recommend the Oly.

In my 21/20 comp I can see some really minor advantage to the Nikon close up, with my preference otherwise to the Oly. In the 28/28 comp (first round indoors) was a dead heat (need outdoor testing for round two) except for the color palette variance. I know that neither of these is the lens you are asking about, but I mention this to suggest how I've been trying to 'split hairs' between these two mfrs, and have decided there is no reason for ME to even look at the Nikon 24 since I have no expectation of any significant gain over the well reviewed Oly 24 2.8

As for your 20-35 ... all I can suggest is GET THE OLY 24 2.8.

I'm not saying it is better (many would, I'll leave that to you), but I'm saying you need to see the colors for yourself. The Oly's can have some vignetting, and I'm shooting a crop, so it doesn't effect me as much as FF would, but I would put good money that when you put the Oly 24 2.8 alongside your 20-35, you'll be quite pleased with what the Oly brings ... I think its reputation is well deserved.

CVickery wrote:
I didn't suggest that the OP should buy a second rate lens. I'm suggesting that he should factor in the price of a decent adapter for the Nikon, if that's the direction he decides to go. I'm glad that you haven't had an issue with your Nikon adapters, but of the 4 I've owned, 3 had issues. Only one without issues was the $90 happypagehk, so IMO at least as far as Nikon adapters are concerned, you get what you pay for.

Agreed. The only Nikon adapter I ever used that wasn't a complete joke was $100 jobby that I borrowed from a friend briefly. It was amazing compared to the $15 crap you get on e-bay.

My experience with Oly adapters is the opposite. The cheapies are perfectly solid and functional.

Oh, and I have no opinion on the 24/2.8 choice here, as I have never used either of them. I do, however, really like my FD 24/2, which I got for around the same price (although conversion is required, of course).

Agreed. The only Nikon adapter I ever used that wasn't a complete joke was $100 jobby that I borrowed from a friend briefly. It was amazing compared to the $15 crap you get on e-bay.

+1 ... the Oly adapters seem to be a simpler undertaking.

I do, however, really like my FD 24/2, which I got for around the same price (although conversion is required, of course).

If I wasn't such a 'big chicken' about conversions ... that could be interesting to see.

Wow I consider myself lucky; I have a cheap Nikon > EOS adapter (from Kawa Photo via ebay) that has worked great. I figured all the cheap ebay adapters were the same but supposedly this one is made out of bronze rather than aluminum like some others are. Together my cheap OM > EOS adapter, I'm not sure I'm convinced yet that I need the expensive ones yet.
(knock on wood)

dfresh wrote:
Wow I consider myself lucky; I have a cheap Nikon > EOS adapter (from Kawa Photo via ebay) that has worked great. I figured all the cheap ebay adapters were the same but supposedly this one is made out of bronze rather than aluminum like some others are. Together my cheap OM > EOS adapter, I'm not sure I'm convinced yet that I need the expensive ones yet.
(knock on wood)

Mine are bronze too, but they are made out of two pieces that are screwed together and the locking pin/mechanism for the Nikon mount is clunky as all hell, with a spring and very loose tolerances. They work, but that's the only thing positive I could say about them.

I often unscrew the two pieces, throw away the Nikon side and the other useless parts and then use the Canon side as a very thin replacement mount for lens conversions. This is the most use I've gotten from them.

The expensive one I tried was designed completely differently and worked much better/smoother.

cogitech wrote:
dfresh wrote:
Wow I consider myself lucky; I have a cheap Nikon > EOS adapter (from Kawa Photo via ebay) that has worked great. I figured all the cheap ebay adapters were the same but supposedly this one is made out of bronze rather than aluminum like some others are. Together my cheap OM > EOS adapter, I'm not sure I'm convinced yet that I need the expensive ones yet.
(knock on wood)

Mine are bronze too, but they are made out of two pieces that are screwed together and the locking pin/mechanism for the Nikon mount is clunky as all hell, with a spring and very loose tolerances. They work, but that's the only thing positive I could say about them.

I often unscrew the two pieces, throw away the Nikon side and the other useless parts and then use the Canon side as a very thin replacement mount for lens conversions. This is the most use I've gotten from them.

The expensive one I tried was designed completely differently and worked much better/smoother.

Hmm, I think you have a different version than mine. I think mine is a single piece. At least, I haven't found any obvious pieces to unscrew from each other.

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Nikon-Lens-to-Canon-EOS-10D-20D-300D-Body-Adapter-Ring_W0QQitemZ260550638468

You'll see what I mean if you look at all 4 photos.

Would highly recommend the Olympus OM 24mm f2.8 over the Nikon simply because the OM is smaller, lighter, and provides for some nice color and contrast. As always, when buying used, there are sample variations and you may not get the best copy - but careful selection should prevent this. Going strictly by price doesn't always pay off when buying used. You may save a couple of bucks in the short term, but if you get a lemon, you may end up losing regardless. If you can locate a good copy, may be worthwhile spending a few extra $$$'s.

As far as OM-EF adapters, I have not had any issues with Fotodiox adapters - they are made in the USA and are really quite good quality wise. They also offer a PRO adapter that goes for around $90 I think which is black and has a better finish.

The Tamron adaptall 24mm f2.5 is a very under-rated lens. It is about the size of the Nikon but lighter. Costs less than the OM or Nikon versions - around $100-$125 new. It provides for very good image quality - nice and crisp - and offers the typical Tamron colors. Tamron adaptall to Canon EF adapters are not hard to find and the cheap ebay one's work fine.

Also look at a Vivitar Series-1 24mm f2.0 in OM mount or Nikon mount. The lens is about as small as an OM lens and while it is comparable to the Nikon 24mm, it is much smaller and lighter - fits between the OM and Nikon sizewise.