Zuiko 24mm 2.8 vs 28mm 3.5

[jessica_jones7]

<p>I have been searching around the net, looking for comparisons of the 24 2.8 vs the 28 3.5, and alas all I can find is "Love the 28, love the 24, but the 28 is cheaper" kind of shpeal. Is there a real difference in the quality, or is it so close that it is worth it to save the extra doll-hairs and go for the 28? I love to travel and want a good wide-angle for my OM1n! Thank you for the opinions :)</p>

[wharridge]

<p>Those extra 4mm on the 28mm can make a significant difference ! Get the 24mm, you can always crop it down to a 28mm field of view but you might not be able to back up far enough to get the shot with the 28mm.</p>

<p>...Wayne</p>

 

[SCL]

<p>Here's a link you may find useful in determining which lens is a better choice for you.<br>

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/index.htm</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>They're different enough in focal length that you should shop for the intended angle of view over the differences in optical performance. If you look at KEH right now, which is one of the more reputable used camera gear shops there is, if not THE most reputable, they have a 28mm in perfect condition for $50, and the 24mm for $180-$235. The reason is that the 24mm has to be increasingly retrofocal to make up for the camera register (mount-to-film distance, which is large on SLRs to clear the mirror), which made it much more complex to design and build. You might consider picking up both, and selling the one that you don't use enough. These lenses aren't going to depreciate any more! And even if you hate one of them (the 28mm is about the perspective/angle of view that you get from most camera phones, while the 24mm is very impressively wide and inclusive of subject matter), then the money you lose on the sale will be worth just a few rolls of film; a drop in the bucket, and more than offset by the experience you will gain from learning what works for you.</p>

[rob_h5]

<p>I would go as UWA (ultra-wide angle) as possible when it comes to OM Zuiko lenses!</p>

<p>The choice of lens for you really should depend on what subject you will be photographing... not on which is "cheaper". I have shot with BOTH the Olympus OM Zuiko 18mm f3.5 and Zuiko 21mm f3.5. Both are excellent lenses. The Zuiko 18/3.5 sells north of $1000.00 so that may not be an option for most photographers. The Zuiko 21mm and 24mm are excellent UWA lens and I would go for the 24mm in your case. The 28mm is "boring" compared to those three UWA lenses I mentioned.</p>

<p>Not only would I go for the 24mm Zuiko lens but instead of the f2.8 see if you can go for the 24 f2. They have one at KEH for sale for just $325 which is about the same price as a Zuiko 21mm f3.5. If you shoot landscapes thats one of the best lenses you could get for Olympus OM.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Didn't see any mention of screen illumination. I've had the 28 f3.5 and now have a 24 f2.8 and the 24 f2.8 Zuiko provides much more illumination to the corners and sides in the finder compared to the 28 f3.5 Zuiko. It is just easier to see the sides and compose the image with the 24 f2.8, not to mention it is also easier to see the meter display, doesn't get lost in the dark sides of the frame.</p>

<p>Just my two cents. </p>

[jim_baker6]

<p>There is a slight difference in quality. The 24mm f2.8 is optimum in the f5.6-f11 range across the frame. The 28mm f3.5 peaks at f8 and is slightly soft fully open, particularly at the edges. The 24mm is a fantastic lens. I use it as a landscape lens and where I want to photograph people in the context of their surroundings. The 28mm would just about do the same job and the image quality would be almost as good as the 24mm. The 28mm is astoundingly good value-for-money. Wider lenses (21mm and wider) in my view are for where you want to exaggerate the foreground vs. the background but for simple landscapes everything looks too far away. On the other hand, 35mm is sometimes not wide enough for landscapes. So my advice is go for the 24mm f2.8 if you can afford it. You will not be disappointed. I have two 36" x 24" landscape prints on my wall taken with my 24mm f2.8. I also have a 28mm f3.5. I would use it if my 24mm f2.8 lens was away being repaired (or something like that) and I'm sure I would be happy with it...but otherwise I would always use my 24mm lens.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>This is a question that is difficult to answer without knowing what other lenses you have. If you have a 35mm then many would prefer a 24mm, as the difference in field of view is greater. If you don't have a 35mm then I would pick the 28mm. The 28mm is a better all round lens in my opinion as it does people and wide angle shots well without the excessive wide angle issues (stretched edges, empty foregrounds) which can be an issue with a 24mm. However, if you already have a 35mm then much of that kind of shooting can be done with that and you can leave the 24 for when you really want wide.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Although wide angle lenses are often associated with landscape photography it is important to note that almost any focal length can be effectively employed for landscape photography, depending on subject and desired effect. I have used anything from 24mm to 300mm on a 35mm SLR.</p>

[wblynch]

<p>I have a 24mm/2.8, a 28/2.8, a 28/3.5 and the 35/2.8.</p>

<p>All are beautiful and each has its advantages. If I had to keep only one it would be the 28/2.8. It just has the most flexibility and all around usefulness.</p>

<p>I have to say that the 24mm/2.8 is extremely sharp. Even with a simple film scanner, you can see the thread pattern in a person's clothes.</p>

<p>The 24mm is also very handy in tight quarters, like small foreign markets or narrow streets where you just can't get more than ten feet away. The WA distortion can be a bother so you have to keep the edges in mind. Otherwise it can look like the buildings are collapsing in on themselves.</p>

<p>The 28/3.5 is a great street shooter. Set it at f/5.6 or f/8 and set the focus so that everything from 5 feet to near infinity is in focus. Set your shutter speed or use an OM-2/OM-10 and just point and shoot. You can get great candids and hip shots without even bringing the camera to eye.<br>

The 28s are not so expensive that if you get a 24mm you can't also have a 28.</p>

 

[harold_gough]

<p>If you shoot inside buildings, such as churches, the 28mm is unlikely to be wide enough. Even a 17mm can seem a bit inadequate sometimes.</p>

[CCU]

A few years ago I took a photo of the 'Humber Suspension Bridge' in evening light using an O.M.1. With a 24mm 2.8. It

was one of my best ever so I had it printed and framed but the negative came back damaged. I went back to the bridge

but only had a 28mm lens. I simply couldn't get the shot. I would think a 24mm can always be cropped if it's too wide. Go

for the 24mm - its very different from 28mm.

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>the 28mm is unlikely to be wide enough</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the kind of comment I just don't understand - it all depends on the church and the composition you are after. "Getting it all in" is not the same thing as being "better".</p>

[harold_gough]

<p>Agreed, but you may need to get closer than you might do with a given lens, due to limited space or to exclude people, and some impressive expanses of decoration, such as those mostly of gold in some Spanish churches, need as wide as you can use to get them in the frame. That said, churches tend to be quite dark and you can only work within the limits of your flash, unless you are able to use a tripod.<br>

I could have said that, for buildings, you really need the 24mm shift, which I use but that is a bit extravagant.</p>

[darin_cozine]

<p>try the lens tests here:<br>

http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=10&id=45&Itemid=97</p>

<p>If I had the extra money, I would go for the 24mm f2.8 Zuiko. 28mm just is not quite wide enough to feel wide.</p>