OM 35 f/2.0 or 35 f/2.8?

[steve_filmer]

Been shooting happily with 21 f/3.5, 50 f/1.8, and 100 f/2.8. But I

find the need for something in-between the 21mm and the 50mm focal

length. As I search for a used OM 35mm lens, would like to know if

anyone has any strong feelings about either the f/2 or f/2.8. Cost

is not an issue, nor is speed. But is the 35 f/2.0 worth the

difference? Thanks.

[michael_shia]

I have both the f2.0 and f 2.8 35mm lenses. I tend to use the f2.0 more often, I mainly use it for dim available light shots, it is also mcuh bigger. It is brighter and maybe a tad sharper. For a more objective assesment these lenese see Gary Reese's site at - http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm

One other lens that I like alot is the 28mm f2.8 lens, it is very small and quite good. So small that I can usually fit my camera in my coat pocket. Great for street work.

[frank granovski]

I believe I have the 28mm F3.5. I wonder if that's a good one? Note: I haven't used my OM-1 & lenses yet. Thanks.

[frank granovski]

I just discovered the OM system review on this site. Wonderful information, especially in the follow-ups!

[robert_grasing]

I have both. The 35/2 MC I bought new over 20 years ago, the 35/2.8 (also new) about 3 years ago. Center performance is the same, but the slower lens is much better toward the edges and corners. It also has less distortion. However, while the basic design of the 35/2 was unchanged, it has gone through several versions. The later models may be better.

 

I prefer the 35/2.8 because it is lighter and takes 49mm filters (the 35/2 uses 55mm), as well as being optically better (in my experience).

[fast_primes]

Steve,

 

IMHO, a 28 makes a much better choice for a lens between 21 and 50!

[simon evans.]

I thought that same as Mr Primes, that 28mm is a more logical step between 50 and 21mm. The Zuiko 28mm f/2 is a blinder. There's not much wrong with the f/2.8 model either.

 

I have both 35mm lenses and have found my (single coated) f/2.8 to be plenty sharp enough once stopped down a little. However, the f/2 version is markedly better for focussing on anything but the brightest days. Optical performance appears very similar, though I haven't done a side-by-side comparison. If small and light is your aim then go for the f/2.8, otherwise seek out an f/2 model.

 

Specs and photos for all Zuiko lenses at http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif/lensgroup.htm

[jim_rosario]

I'd go for the 28/2. Both a better lens and a more logical step. And since the 35/2.8 is so ubiquitous I'd get that too:>) I tend to use the 35mm length as a walk around "normal" and the 28/2 as a wide. Even though they are close mm wise for me they don't overlap useage wise. Then there is the practically disposable 28/3.5 for lightweight travel. I'd hate to lose the 28/2 but the 28/3.5 is easy to find and very cheap. So heck, get 'em all!

 

By the way, here's plug for my OM classified. Check it out.

[j_dc]

I own the 35f2 and for my subject interest tend to use it in place of my 55f1.2 as my normal lens. That said all the very wide aperture lenses through the balance of the bodies off (both in weight and size). Personally, I prefer the brightness of the f2 and f1.2 lenses but like the compactness of my 50f1.4, 100f2.8 and 200f5. But as above for my 'normal' lens I'll take the extra stop and live with extra size.

 

As far as a 28 goes, it's certainly closer to the middle of your current lenses but just a little too much distortion and perspective change for my every day 'carry on' lens.

[suchismit1]

I own the 35/2. For manual focus cameras buy the brightest you can afford, no questions. Optical quality by mid aperture is about the same.