I'd love to see more from and hear more about your OM 35/2. I haven't seen a lot of images or discussion on that lens. It's one I've considered when shopping for a fast MF 35mm, but the lack of samples and good things said about it lead to me not even trying it. Looking good here!
arduluth wrote:
I'd love to see more from and hear more about your OM 35/2. I haven't seen a lot of images or discussion on that lens. It's one I've considered when shopping for a fast MF 35mm, but the lack of samples and good things said about it lead to me not even trying it. Looking good here!
arduluth wrote:
I'd love to see more from and hear more about your OM 35/2. I haven't seen a lot of images or discussion on that lens. It's one I've considered when shopping for a fast MF 35mm, but the lack of samples and good things said about it lead to me not even trying it. Looking good here!
Have just arrived home after the trip. Hence will feedback more detail later. Here're some initial impressions of this low-praised Zuiko:
1. Wider aperture f2.0 to f2.8: it's glow, not unusable, but glow. and low contrast too. But I can easily boost up in Photoshop.
2. From f4 or smaller: it sharp, and corner will be on excellent level (at least to my eyes) from f8 to f11. Saturation also improve a lot.
3. It main weakness are: flare & lacking of micro contrast. Especially compare to my other Contax lenses, this Zuiko lacks the micro contrast that Zeiss is famous for. My limited PP skill can't compensate for this lacking. Also, it's flare sometimes in weird position. I'm not saying it's easy to flare, but, sometimes even when the sun not in the frame, it still has ghost, and with strange color. Fortunately, even when it flared, the contrast still good retained (relatively).
Some more samples:
1. at f4.0 (or f5.6) - just notice to the heel of the woman - a strange purple there due to the sun light
So, after all, it's a lens with flaws. But has its own characters and has not have a modern render look. Not too sharp, not too saturation, but has its own charms, especially with the current running price (I bought it in the UK with just 130 UKP)
One key point for me is its tiny size and weight. The Zuiko is smaller than most of my lenses in focal 35 to 50mm range. When trekking 20km/day consecutively in few days, 100 grams weight different are really a lot
DavidBM wrote:
Wonderful images; I think they'd be even more wonderful if you'd dial back the sharpening a bit...
Thanks DavidBM, I'll adjust the sharpening as your suggestion. Just try to make it renders like a Zeiss in micro contrast Maybe I need more time in practice to control this tiny Zuiko
Dutchflyer wrote:
Thanks DavidBM, I'll adjust the sharpening as your suggestion. Just try to make it renders like a Zeiss in micro contrast Maybe I need more time in practice to control this tiny Zuiko
Yeah totally get that motivation! Love my Zuikos as I do, though, I think the best bet is to accept that most of them don't have massive micro (or macro) contrast (the Final Three aside: 2/100, 2/50, 2/90) and learn to enjoy their classic mid contrast rendering. I've tried fixing micro contrast in post, and you can get some of the way with high radius low amount sharpening, or deconvolution, but you don't get much improvement before the artefacts degrade the image more than the contrast improves it.
Sure; I was leaving out the Big White Zuikos and the unobtainable 35-80 zoom.
But I see you have the littlest Big White! Cool I lusted after that lens so much when I was a film user (and actually would quite like one now if it was more affordable to use on Sony)
DavidBM wrote:
Sure; I was leaving out the Big White Zuikos and the unobtainable 35-80 zoom.
But I see you have the littlest Big White! Cool I lusted after that lens so much when I was a film user (and actually would quite like one now if it was more affordable to use on Sony) I waited and watched Ebay for 3 years to find one at an accessible price. Sold my Nikon AI-S 200mm f/2 to pay for it! Between the performance and the size/weight savings, it was a no-brainer. I have no expectation of ever encountering the other two.
I took the new OM 21/3.5 and 24 2.8 out for a spin yesterday. I like the 24 a lot better than the 21. But here's an exposure made through the 21, at f8 or 11:
