Olymbus Zuiko 24/2.8. Any comment.

[ken_wong1]

Olymbus Zuiko 24/2.8. Any comment. Thanks.

[simon evans.]

Plenty sharp enough - as good as the 21mm f3.5 in my opinion, and half the price. Partners the 50mm in a truly minimal kit (used for <a href="http://www.mawddwy.freeserve.co.uk/dublin.htm">this series in Dublin, Ireland</a>). Try the <a href="http://zuiko.sls.bc.ca/~swright/archives/search.cgi">OM Mailing List Archives</a> for more. See an

example at <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/591475&size=lg">www.photo.net/photo/591475</a>.

[willardwkrieble]

Great lens...the Olympus 24mm 2.8 was and still is my "work horse" go to lens. Sharp as a tack wide open. The rubber slip on focusing ring is shot on mine and I am looking to get it replaced. But after using it for the past 28 years I guess that's not too bad. Old lens and old shooter but both work good.

[ken_wong1]

Hi, Simon......You took a lot of good pictures. Can you tell me that what is the lens you use for taking the flowers' photos. Thanks.

[alan_krantz]

I never liked the 24/2.8 much. It seemed to be a better lens at the mid-distance range than infinity or near focus. I also didn't care much for its rendering. I think the sigma has better resolution and quasi-close up (I think it is a floating element design).

[fast_primes]

Certainly not a bad lens, but the extraordinary quality of the my 21F3.5 and 28F2.0, caused me to ignore it.

[frank_oddsocks]

A very good landscape lens: very sharp and contrasty with good colours. Certainly good enough to put an enlargement on your wall.

 

As someone else mentioned, it doesn't have a floating element design, but this doesn't seem to affect the quality noticeably in near-far compositions.

 

The fall-off wide open is severe, but is hardly noticeable by f/4 and is gone by f/5.6.

 

I also have the 21/2, which *is* usable wide open. That's a less contrasty lens, with "smoother" looking colours. I find it a bit wide for landscape.

[simon evans.]

From results I've seen the 24/2.8 is as good as the 21/3.5.

[dean_tyler]

It is a good lens. I tend to like the 28mm f2 for its lack of distortion and close focus. I have shot a lot with the 21mm f3.5 and 24 f2.8 and have to say in terms of image quality they are very close. I sold my 24mm and only a 21mm f2 could entice me away from the 21mm f3.5.

[Aoresteen]

I bought one used way back in '79 or so. I've allways liked it. Shary, lightweight, good contrast. Works well with the 35 f/2. I have a 28 f/3.5 that I don't use - I like the 24 better.

[erik_dorset1]

I never leave home without it. Sometimes it seems to be glued onto my camera, I like it so much, and I have gotten fantastic dramatic results from it without going overboard on the wide angle effect. I don't think you will be sorry if one falls into your hands!