MAubrey wrote:
A couple shots with the Olympus OM 180mm f/2. Basically my favorite lens ever.
The second image really shows what is possible with such a lens. Bastian just reviewed the Olympus OM 2/180 a few days ago.
I just finished the Olympus OM 2/28 Review. I think it works well for closeups at f/4 and it is a decent landscape lens but apart from that it isn't too attractive nowadays.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
The second image really shows what is possible with such a lens. Bastian just reviewed the Olympus OM 2/180 a few days ago.
I just finished the Olympus OM 2/28 Review. I think it works well for closeups at f/4 and it is a decent landscape lens but apart from that it isn't too attractive nowadays.
But if I should consider only your photos here, I would get two.. I cant tell how much of that is lens rendering and how much is your special PP juice, but I really like results.
I tried two copies of OM 28/2 on a Fuji X-T2. Both were disappointing in comparison to the cost and the reputation of the lens. My dirt cheap little OM 28/3.5 turned in a better overall performance.
I've recently acquired the OM 50/2 and OM 90/2. I don't have any images to share yet on this thread; the ones I've made have been to run them through their paces. However, I can already say that these lenses definitely live up to their reputation. They're one of the few older film lenses I've used that are strong from wide open. The close focus capabilities (1:2) are also excellent. I'm really looking forward to putting them to work.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I just finished the Olympus OM 2/28 Review. I think it works well for closeups at f/4 and it is a decent landscape lens but apart from that it isn't too attractive nowadays.
In one of my tests the tiny OM 3.5/28 was as sharp or sharper than the Zeiss 2.8/28 or Pentax K 3.5/28 which are the best legacy 28s I know of. There is one issue though and that is that it is only single coated which reduces contrast and causes really bad flare resistance. Thats why I hardly ever use it despite its performance and size.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
The second image really shows what is possible with such a lens. Bastian just reviewed the Olympus OM 2/180 a few days ago
Definitely. It's incredible how much separation you can get for full body portraits with these telephotos.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I just finished the Olympus OM 2/28 Review. I think it works well for closeups at f/4 and it is a decent landscape lens but apart from that it isn't too attractive nowadays.
A great read and I agree. The Sony 28mm f/2 has quirks, but it's far above most legacy 28mm's these days. Still, you have a knack for bringing out the best in a lens! Looking forward to see what's next for you guys.
I just picked up my Olympus 35mm shift and a tilt adapter. Should arrive in the mail this coming week!
Once you've had a chance to test out your 35mm shift, do please post up some thoughts and results. I bought a nearly mint version of the 35mm shift because it was reviewed so well on the 16:9 website; it was the "right" one per the advice on that site. Unfortunately, the one I tested was not good at all -- very soft and not good in the shifted portion. It was very strange. My OM 28/3.5 shifts vastly better on my Kipon T/S adapter than the OM 35/2.8 shift. In fact, because the performance was so poor on that one copy I tested, I went with a Canon FD 35mm t/s lens, which is mounted on my Fuji X-T2 via a Fotodiox shift adapter (making it very flexible).
Good luck. I hope your copy is much better than mine was!
MAubrey wrote:
I just picked up my Olympus 35mm shift and a tilt adapter. Should arrive in the mail this coming week!
I think it's better than the Pentax K 28/3.5, which I also used to own in a couple versions.
Regarding the coating, yes, definitely single-coated. However... my copy is a very, very late version (serial number over 400,000). The coatings on that copy are definitely different than on the earlier one I also have. I see multiple colours on my good copy. I can easily imagine that late in the run they may have thrown better coatings onto one or more elements. That did happen apparently.
Anyway, I always use a shade so it works well for me.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
In one of my tests the tiny OM 3.5/28 was as sharp or sharper than the Zeiss 2.8/28 or Pentax K 3.5/28 which are the best legacy 28s I know of. There is one issue though and that is that it is only single coated which reduces contrast and causes really bad flare resistance. Thats why I hardly ever use it despite its performance and size.
rdeloe wrote:
Once you've had a chance to test out your 35mm shift, do please post up some thoughts and results. I bought a nearly mint version of the 35mm shift because it was reviewed so well on the 16:9 website; it was the "right" one per the advice on that site. Unfortunately, the one I tested was not good at all -- very soft and not good in the shifted portion. It was very strange. My OM 28/3.5 shifts vastly better on my Kipon T/S adapter than the OM 35/2.8 shift. In fact, because the performance was so poor on that one copy I tested, I went with a Canon FD 35mm t/s lens, which is mounted on my Fuji X-T2 via a Fotodiox shift adapter (making it very flexible).
Good luck. I hope your copy is much better than mine was!
Perhaps the 35 Shift has similar issues as with the Zuiko 24mm f/2.8 which I have heard is hit or miss in terms of quality control. The copy I'm waiting for in the mail is a multi-coated one from the late 80's. We'll see...and I'll certainly report back.
I sincerely hope I got a bad copy! It's certainly possible. For some of my OM's I've had to go through multiple versions to find a really good one. They are quite old after all. For what it's worth, it did test very well at 16:9. I'm crossing my fingers for you...l
MAubrey wrote:
Oh dear...now I'm a bit nervous!
Perhaps the 35 Shift has similar issues as with the Zuiko 24mm f/2.8 which I have heard is hit or miss in terms of quality control. The copy I'm waiting for in the mail is the multi-coated version from the late 80's. We'll see...and I'll certainly report back.
rdeloe wrote:
I sincerely hope I got a bad copy! It's certainly possible. For some of my OM's I've had to go through multiple versions to find a really good one. They are quite old after all. For what it's worth, it did test very well at 16:9. I'm crossing my fingers for you...l
My non-chrome-nosed copy with serial 388xxx reflects amber and purple and is excellent. It is the sharpest 28mm I have tried among at least 15 different models from all manufacturers.
My non-chrome-nosed with serial 388xxx copy reflects amber and purple and is excellent. It is the sharpest 28mm I have tried among at least 15 different models from all manufacturers.
I can confirm. Only flare performance lets it down slightly cf. the Pentax K 28/3.5 (the earlier "K". not the later "M" version)
I cant tell how much of that is lens rendering and how much is your special PP juice, but I really like results.
