Hi all,
The 35/2 was my first (and, for many years, my only) Zuiko, and IMHO
performs rather poor wide open -- I
always used it as if it were a f/2.8 lens with an "emergency" f/2 setting...
Maybe I got a "dog", or it was greatly improved when going blacknosed (mine
was silvernose), but I won't dare to buy another one to test...
That even lead me to go into "the dark side". However, after trying a
300/4.5, a 50/1.8 and later a 28/2, I recovered my faith on Zuikos ;-)
If you like to use it wide-open, I would recommend the 40/2 as an
alternative -- although they're ridiculously expensive nowadays! But the FOV
is not too different, it's _very_ compact and sharp enough wide-open. Bokeh
seems beautiful, too. Some pics taken with it:
<http://www.tope.nl/tope_show_entry.php?event=20&pic=30> (on film)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/atachaos/audrey40.jpeg> (on digital)
I think of 35mm as a "standard" lens, but 40 will do the trick -- 45 and
beyond is too long for me. On the other hand, you may consider the Zuiko
28/2, which is much better than the 35 (although not _terribly_ sharp wide
open) and is, by the way, the most compact of the F2-wides -- the only one
with 49mm filters!
Speaking of the fast wides, my order of preference differs a bit from that
of Mr. Ling: I would rate the 24/2 the best, then the 21/2, 28/2 (somewhat
lower at f/2) and, far away, the 35/2 :-(
The 28-48 zoom is nice and sharp, even surpassing some primes... but at the
corners suffers somewhat, the 28/2.8 (and the 28/3.5, which is even
_sharper_) does better. And it's much slower than f/2, so no real
alternative here.
BTW, I also had the 35/2.8, but saw no real advantage... my only Zuiko in
35mm focal is now the lightweight 35-70/3.5-4.5, very sharp and contrasty.
I did some research to "find" what I disliked about the 35/2, like with
some usually highly regarded lenses (Tamron 24/2.5, Oly XA's 35/2.8, Canonet
QL17, etc). After doing the "star-test" (I'm into astrophotography too) I
have a hypothesis: the main aberration of the aforementioned lenses (Zuiko
35/2 included) is coma, but in a way I would call "inwards coma" -- the
misplaced rays of a light point are spread radially, pointing to the
_centre_...
...while some other lenses (the Tamron 28/2.5 and the Zuiko 50/1.4, for
instance) exhibit "outwards coma", where the rays spread to the corners.
That would make a "soft" image, but in a way I find more pleasant, or at
least much less disturbing.
Sorry for the rant :-) Cheers,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
