Olympus OM Zuiko 18mm f/3.5

M

mark_farrell

Suspended / Banned
Messages
178
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
Has anyone used this lens, especially on a full frame digital body? I've found one over here in Oz, near mint for AUD 900 (ca. £500) Now that's getting close to a Canon 17-40mm, which is obviously a modern, all-singing, all-dancing lens. Whilst the 17-40mm isn't exactly a large lens, the 18mm is TINY, which as a hiker is quite a good point.

So, has anyone used both of these lenses, and if so, what were your conclusions?

As an aside, the same shop are flogging NEW Oly PENs with the 17mm lens for AUD599, or about £325 - anyone want one? Really tempted myself...
 
Well, I took the plunge, and what a remarkable little lens it is. Shall post some of the quick shots I took today with it. Didn't really find anything that lent itself to UWA photography really, but they should demonstrate it well enough...
 
The OM Zuikos are VERY highly regarded and I can see why! They all seem to be tiny, which is really good for the bag. I have the 28/2.0 but I think I'll be selling it soon as hardly ever gets used...I have a CZ Distagon 28/2.8 which I prefer. I've got the 85/2.0 as well which is also a cracker.

I've been using the Tamron SP 17/3.5 for ultra wide on my 5D, but I'd love to hunt one of these out instead ;)
 
I've never come across that Tamron, but from the (very few) reviews I've seen, it suffered a lot distortion of compared to the Olympus. Knowing how rare they were, especially mint, I could hardly leave it there!

The one review that compared the Oly to a modern Canon UWA zoom, the Oly won in just about every respect. As I do a lot of hiking, the size (or lack thereof) was always going to score points if the IQ wasn't far off a 17-40 or 16-35...
 
mark_farrell said:
Well, I appear to be talking to myself here,
Click to expand...

It's the only way to get an intelligent conversation !

I haven't got this lens, but the other OM lenses I've tried seem a little soft on my Canon 40D, they come up with PP though.
 
I've read that Canon aren't brilliant with wide angles, but I've never had one for long enough to draw a conclusion to be honest. I've been very pleased with the Carl Zeiss lenses and the Tamron is OK on my 40D but you are correct, there's quite a bit of distortion on full frame. No where near as much as I get with my Tokina made Soligor 17/3.5 however, that's almost fisheye!

One lens I haven't used enough yet is my Nikon AI 20/4. It seems to show the standard Nikon wideangle distortion, but looks pretty sharp to me. I needed to remove some of the rear plating to get it onto my 5D however :D
 
I haven't got this lens, but the other OM lenses I've tried seem a little soft on my Canon 40D, they come up with PP though.
Click to expand...

Odd, that's the exact opposite of what I've found with most of mine. I sometimes peer at them and wonder, but then have to blame the focus / camera shake. Almost all of mine are sharp, the new one too :-) The worst one I've used is my 28mm f/3.5, which seems poor all together really, and my 50mm f/1.4, but only at f/1.4. However, I could probably carry about 5 zuiko primes for the same weight as my 24-105L, and unless I want A1 prints, trust them completely to do the job, and that's on full-frame.

In fact, I'm thinking of getting hold of an OM-1 or OM-2 and using them in their native environment. My focussing does suffer occasionally due to the lack of a prism viewfinder...
 
mine seems fine
Click to expand...

Well, my 24-105L @ 24mm isn't great, and I've not been that impressed by the sharpness of a 17-40L or 17-35L I've tried. I'm sure the 16-35IIL is better, but it's also much much heavier. We all have our tradeoffs. Most tests with old lenses (admittedly said tester my be biassed towards the old glass) do seems to favour the older lenses, with the exception of distortion, which in some cases can be easily fixed these days in photoshop
 
trencheel303 said:
mine seems fine :shrug:
Click to expand...

Sorry, it was a bit of blasé comment, and I don't have my own evidence to back it up, so take with a pinch of salt...I am literally parroting what others have said. However, I'd be surprised if any Canon wide zoom, L or not, is as sharp as a good prime. I have only ever tried one truely uniformly sharp wide zoom, and that's the Contax Carl Zeiss 35-70/3.4 (which I kept!).

I can't speak for Canon's wide primes however, and look forward to trying a 24/2.8 in the future :)
 
I almost forgot...

I hired a 24L and 14L for my mate who togged our wedding. They were exceptional, but the 14L in particular also has an exceptional price...

It would be good to get hold of those lenses and a few old ones for a true like-for-like comparison...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top