Difference in 28mm lenses

[brian_bahn]

I want to get a wide angle lens for my OM1 and have been wathing EBay for one.

I am basically a complete newb at this but have been reading a lot over the

past few weeks. I have a 50mm and 70-210mm for my OM1 but want a 28mm or 24mm.

So far it seems the 28mm can be had much more reasonable and for now I want to

keep the invesment fairly low until I feel I deserve to buy better equipment.

No reason for a rookie to have the better stuff when he has little clue as to

use it to it's full potential and appreciation.

 

I primarily see two different 28mm lenses, one is a f3.5 and the other a f2.8.

The f2.8 looks like it goes for nearly twice the price as the f3.5. My

question is why? Does the one f stop(I'm assuming one f stop like I said I'm

still pretty green at this) make that much of a difference or are the optics

better as well? If I buy the f3.5 based on price will I regret it later and

wish I really would have bought the 2.8?

[matthew_newton]

I think you would regret either purchase if you want to try to keep things cheap. The 2/3rds of a stop of speed difference between the 2.8 and the 3.5 is really the reason why there is such a cost difference.

 

My suggestion is look for a Tamron 28mm f/2.5 and if it doesn't come with one an Adaptall OM adaptor (just search "Tamron 28mm" and "Adaptall OM" on Ebay and it will pull up both). The Tamron 28mm f/2.5 is faster then either lens and even if you have to purchase an adaptor seperately much cheaper then either. I ended up getting my Tamron 28mm f/2.5 for $40 shipped compared to an average of about $40-50 for the Zuiko 28mm f/3.5 or around $80-100 for the Zuiko 28mm f/2.8

 

The adaptor on the lens is very easy to figure out how to replace with a different one. If you can't figure it out, just ask on here.

 

Something else you could look for is a Sigma 24mm f/2.8 lens in OM mount, it is a superb performer and can generally be had pretty cheap (I got mine for around $50 a couple of years ago).

[leandro_dutra1]

The greater aperture (actually it is a ratio, so 1:1.8 is bigger than 1:3.5) gives your film more light, so you can use faster shutter speeds, freeze objects in motion and better control depth of field.

[harold_gough]

Better still, get the Tamron 24-48mm, giving yourself a choice of focal lengths. I had mine on the camera most of the time until I got my Tamron 35-80mm, which is has better definition over focal lengths shared with the 24-48mm. Make sure that the 24-48mm comes with its dedicated hood, as there in no other means of attaching filters (77mm).

 

If you get into the Adaptall-2 system you can then fit other lenses via the adapter, the SP 17mm being rectilinear and superb. (Get the earlier version with built-in filters and be sure to obtain the hood which holds additional, 82mm filters).

[patrick j dempsey]

f/3.5 is not terribly slow. I regularily shoot the 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 and it's not difficult to shoot with. But if I'm shooting indoors in low-light... 24mm f/2.8 is what I grab... but that one's even more pricey.

[konrad_beck1]

The 28/3.5 are all single coated and older. In 1980, this lens was replaced by the (always) multicoated 28/2.8. In both cases, Olympus was keen to keep the lenses as compact as possible (lenght 31-32mm compared w/ Tokina SL28/2.8: 36mm, tamron 28/2.5 38mm). Most 3rd party lenses will focus in the other direction than the Olympus lenses.

 

A quick search on the recently completed ebay 28mm Zuiko lenses gives me the impression that both versions can be had for $31 to $45 in decent conditions with no special trend that the f/2.8 would be more expensive. There seems a trend in japanese classical OM user circles to prefer the f/3.5 version (possibly due to the specific Zuiko glow?).

 

If you read Harold's suggestions for a Tamron 24-48/3.5-3.8, notice his comment on the huge 77mm filter diameter: the Olympus lenses are both 49mm, and even the Zuiko 28-48mm/4 zoom though hard to find has a 49mm filter thread). The Tamron hood is hard to find because it is made of quite fragile, stiff plastic. If a standard lens cap is put onto the lens, the front element -at least the coating- gets easily damaged: I have seen a number of these Tamron lenses with a ca. 2mm circle in the center of the front element rubbed off; not the best in wide angle photography.

[tim_huggins]

There are three 28mm Zuikos: f3.5, f2.8 and f2. All three are excellent lenses (as are all Zuikos). The f3.5 is often considered the best value (performance and price) of any wide angle anywhere. People have a fascination with fast lenses, which explains the price differential that you see. It has nothing to do with performance. Some fast lenses can produce noticeable worse image quality than their standard brethren, due to the technical challenges of making a fast lens.

 

For heavens sake, ignore the ridiculous comments about getting a Tamron! Both the f3.5 and f2.8 are little gems, weighing a bit over 5 oz and easily slipping into a pocket. Olympus advertized the f3.5 as the smallest lens available in its class. Although Tamron may make some good lenses, Zuikos are in a completely different class. And never get a zoom when a prime will do the job!

[brian_bahn]

Thanks for the info folks. To Konrad's point about a quick search on EBay and the 3.5 and 2.8 being about the same he is correct. I started to compile too many "Watching" items and the two I saw that ended that went for $158(US) were the 24mm 2.8's. That makes sense. Sorry I start looking at so many different lenses and it can get get confusing. Haha.

 

If both the 2.8 and 3.5 28mm go for relatively the same I will definitely go with the 2.8 and stick with the Zuiko.

[matthew_newton]

I have a spread sheet of OM gear prices that I have collected over a few months from Ebay, the 28/2.8 seems to go on average $20-30 more then the 3.5 (correcting what I said earlier, 3.5 is around 45-60 and the 2.8 for around 70-80).

 

I would not disregard the Tamron. I have heard from a number of people that it is at least as sharp as most OE manufacturers including Zuiko. I can attest to the fact that the copy I have is razor sharp at all aperatures. You also have the advantage that you can use it on another system later if you would like, it uses a 49mm filter like most of the slower zuiko lenses, it has a bit better shading from the sun then the zuiko stuff does without a lens hood as the front element is smaller and set a bit further in.

 

The Tamron is 1/3 of a stop faster then the zuiko 28/2.8 (being a 28/2.5). It weighs 6.3oz compared to the Zuiko 28/2.8's 6 oz (wow, a couple of grams difference). As you mentioned the Tamron 28/2.5 is about 5mm longer and the Tamron also has the option of stopping down to f/32 instead of the Zuiko's maximum f/22. Both are multicoated and the Tamron focuses the same direction as all Zuiko's.

 

The Tamron, even if an adaptor needs to be purchased seperately can be had for slightly less then the zuiko and if you can find one with the right adaptor included it can be $20-30 less easily.

 

Zuiko lenses for the most part are exellent, but there are plenty of third part lenses out there that are also extremely good. Frankly a lot of the Zuiko lenses just aren't worth spending the money on when there is a 3rd party alternative that is almost as good or in a few rare cases better.

[paul mitchell]

My 28mm f3.5 Zuiko was given to me for nothing but it is a fantastic little lens and one of only three I kept for my OM film camera when I went (partially) digital. I like it even more than the 28mm f2.8 I used to own. I would definitely recommend it as value-for-money purchase.

[ilkka]

3.5 is plenty fast for a wideangle for most people. 2.8 is less than a stop faster. If you really need the speed, you would have to get at least an F/2 for it to make any real difference. And that would be quite a lot more expensive and bigger and heavier as well and most of the time you would want to stop it down to F/4 or smaller anyway. What would be the point?

[harold_gough]

"And never get a zoom when a prime will do the job!"

 

It can't do the job if you can't get it to the location. With about 6kg being the limit for cabin luggage, you can't carry a fully comprehensive kit for and overseas trip if you use entirely primes. (Even with primes, my Tamron 90mm macro is displaced by the Zuiko 50mm macro for such trips). Anyway, some more recent zooms have more performance that can ever be fully exploited. Zooms of a range more than 3:1 are best avoided and I use not such lenses.

 

Fanciful claims about Olympus always being the best have an element of regious fervour about them and other strings show this to be unreliable. The 49mm filter standard is to be applauded but should not restrict us.

 

Konrad Beck's comments about the Tamron 24-28mm zoom do not differ from mine. If only the OM 28-48mm f4(I have one, a lovely lens) had covered the same range.

[robert_grasing]

'If I buy the f3.5 based on price will I regret it later and wish I really would have bought the

2.8?'

 

If you often shoot in very high flare situations, you'll probably prefer the multi-coated 2.8.

Otherwise, the 3.5 is more than good enough. It's very popular in Japan, still considered one

of the best Zuiko wide angles; in some ways a better performing lens than the 2.8 (less

distortion, less fall-off, slightly better edge resolution and contrast). But either lens would be

excellent.

[harold_gough]

One further factor: With its wide angle adapter the T32 will cover the field of a 21mm lens. That is by direct lighting. However, you could go wider with bounced flash.

[User_502260]

I don't think the difference between f/2.8 and f/3.5 is 2/3 of a stop. It's more like 1/2 of a stop. My 28/3.5 Zuiko has a black front rim and is multicoated. I do not have any oter 28mm Zuiko lens but I have many other 28mm lenses and I find the performance of my 28/3.5 Zuiko to be quite good.

 

If you want to spend even less you might consider the 28/2.5 Vivitar Fixed Mount, the 28/2.5 Tanron Adpaptall II which has been mentioned, the 28/2.5 Vivitar TX, the later and more compact Vivitar 28/2.8 TX, the Kiron 28/2.8, the Vivitar 28/2 (22XXX... Kino version or 28XXX... Konine version) or one of the later Sigmm 28/2.8 models. In very low light a faster 28 can be helpful. For general use and for use in daylight a 28/3.5 Zuiko is fine.

[User_502260]

Make that other, Tamron, Komine and Sigma. I can't type on an empty stomach. Time for dinner.

[matthew_newton]

2.8 compared to 3.5 is actually .57 stops faster, I prefer to round up to 2/3 rather then round down to 1/2, but it is actually in the middle. An F-stop of 3.4 is actually much closer to being in the middle of f/2.8 and f/4.

 

I'd suggest the Sigma 28/1.8 like the one I have if you really want low light performance, but it doesn't exactly hold the title of cheap. A lot cheaper then a Zuiko 28/2 however (by about $200). I ended up getting my Sigma 28/1.8 for $110 and it is a fantastic lens (I have seen them go for about $100 up to around $220).

 

I would agree with Harold that it is difficult to go all prime and fly, but it is possible, especially depending on what you want to do with your kit. A decent set composed of a 28mm, 50mm, 85mm and 135mm lenses will only set you back about 2lbs (for the lenses) and if you throw in a 200mm lens that is maybe only another pound or so. Now you want every prime along the way it will weigh a lot, a 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 100, 135 and 200mm lenses will weigh quite a bit and take up a lot of space.

 

My travel kit (weighs in around 6lbs/3kg) is my OM-1n, sigma 24/2.8, tamron 28/2.5 (or sigma 28/1.8), zuiko 50/1.4, tamron 35-70/3.5 and vivitar 70-210/3.5, so a few primes in there. My ideal kit would be replacing the sigma 24/2.8 with a tamron 24/2.5 or zuiko 24/2 and also having a sigma 15/2.8 or tamron 17/3.5

[robert_grasing]

Since the topic of maximum aperture has come up:

 

There's often a difference between the marked maximum aperture of an older lens and its

actual value. Manufacturers tended to use certain 'traditional' marked values : eg, f/2.8,

f/3.5, f/4. A f/3.4 or a f/3.6 lens would be marked as f/3.5. Actual example: the Zuiko

35-70/3.5-4.5 zoom has a maximum aperture close to f/3.2, according to a technical

analysis in Asahi Camera. A throwback to the days of simple analog display exposure

meters or exposure charts with limited aperture choices, I suppose. Today the trend is to

call a lens what it is, and not round it off to standard values.

 

Then there is the matter of light transmission (ie, T-stops): two lenses could have the

same measured maximum aperture but one might insert a loss of 1/3 or even 1/2 stop

due to the number of elements and the nature of the coating. An obvious example is a

zoom lens. But since most cameras now have very accurate exposure meters reading

through the lens, it's not a problem in practice, and probably never noticed.

[harold_gough]

Robert's point about actual aperture values is one that, if I ever knew it, I had long forgotten.

 

Reports from bench tests of lenses can be useful here. It might also be instructive to see how our own lenses perform, on a tripod, in steady light conditions. A spot reading off a grey card, or equivalent, at various apertures and, for zomm lenses, various focal lengths, might be revealing.

 

Of course, the practical usefulness might be limited, at least with film cameras. Shutter speeds are fixed, discrete values and apertures are variable only by half a stop, such that even the 1/3 stop exposure compensations we can dial in may never happen as such.

 

Print film need not worry but reversal film users may have to accept some degree of compromise. Anyway, by the time we have sorted our exact exposure, the light may have changed!

[harold_gough]

Matthew's kit is rather lighter than mine. I cover virtually all non-people subjects, from landscapes to general travel to buildings to close-ups to moderate macro. With that in mind, my fairly standard kit for a 10 night trip by air comprises two bags. Each is a typical canvas bag with adjustable compartments, two end pouches, a front pouch and a shoulder strap.

 

All lenses have skylight filters fitted.

 

Bag 1 (The essentials)

 

2x OM4 bodies.

 

Tamron SP lenses: 17mm, 24-48mm 13A, 38-80mm 01A, 70-210 19AH, x2 flatfield converter

 

Olympus lenses 50mm 3.5 macro, 35mm shift

 

Flash T32

 

The above all comes to about 5.5kg, bag included. Film* and some bits and pieces make up the 6kg

 

Bag 2 (Special gear)

 

Hasselblad X-Pan with 90mm and 45mm lenses, Tamron SP 300mm 2.8 (2.5kg), x 1.4 and x 2 LD converters

 

Some flexibility may be used, for example if I take my Tamron SP 2.5 180mm 63B or my T28 twin flash.

 

Items such as the 65-116mm telescopic auto tube, sometimes the T32 flash), other extension tubes, numerous filters, (possibly further lenses), a small tripod, bean bag, AA batteries, Weston V meter and suchlike go in my suitcase. A Horizon 202 swing lens panoramic tends to be packed too.

 

My wife carries one bag as hers.

 

On a trip to Iceland I carried a third bag, or rather our son did!

 

* I discard card boxes to save weight. I typically use 6 x 36 exposures per day, perhaps more with the panoramic format.

[ondrejp_spyderman]

Back to the original question:

 

my advice is buy either Zuiko 3.5 or 2.8 version. I used to have the 3.5 SC and shoot with it a lot. Never noticed problems with contrast. My slides were always beautiful sharp and contrasty. I recently got the 2.8 MC so I gave the 3.5 to my girlfriend. Not that I wouldn't like the 3.5, but I prefer brighter viewfinder of the 2.8, and the fact that it's MC.

 

BTW: stopping down to f/32 is absolutely useless. Beyond f/16 difraction starts do degrade sharpness.

[tim_huggins]

"Fanciful claims about Olympus always being the best have an element of regious fervour about them..."

 

You might want to go back an read some lens tests from the heyday of the OM system. The most rigorous testing by the best people in the business produced all those "fanciful claims" that zuikos were comparable (or better) than Leice/Zeiss glass.

[rustys pics]

The 28mm f/3.5 Zuiko is considered the best wide angle of the two, and possibly the whole OM Zuiko line. It's the sharpest and has the lowest distortion. The difference between single and multi-coated is minimal. A proper lens hood will do more to improve contrast than multi-coating.