I remember buying the Zuiko 35mm f/2.8 from the big Jessops in Hinckley Road, Leicester where ELO's Mr Blue Sky was often playing in the corridor. The new lens was drop dead gorgeous, the only Zuiko prime that I got separately, except for foolishly the 180mm f/2.8, which cost me and I hardly ever used. Those Olympus wide angles were so tiny that adding just a UV filter seemed to make them a lot bigger!
One of the best vintage lens review channels! I got inspired and bought the CZ Jena 35 2.4 on Ebay. It is in a very good condition. I will use it for videography. Thanks for the inspiration!
Hello Nigel, it‘s a pleasure to watch this video, thanks! 35mm is a focal length I like very much. Oftentimes the 50 mil is a little bit to tight. The Minolta MD 1.8/35mm (an exquisite lens as it gathers a lot of light) as well as the Nikkor AI-S 2.8/35 are also both highly recommendable. Both of them are bitingly sharp and crisp. The Olympus I don’t have. A little nice piece of equipment! I assume the colors it delivers are likewise the colors of the Minolta, exuberant and vivid! If you have questions about both lenses, don’t hesitate to ask. Best wishes, Ralf
The Minolta and Nikon do sound nice, I'll look out for them. I've found Minolta and Olympus to be very similar in their approach to colour, exuberant and vivid as you say, the Minoltas very slightly more so!
Great video as always. I would have preferred a real world comparison with your usual shots (tree trunk, locked gate, colourful beach balls etc.) and some black and white comparisons, but I suppose it wasn't practical to do at the time. I have to say that on the evidence you've shown I prefer the zuiko. I think the physical size difference is a big factor, especially if going out with a few primes in your pockets to do some street/landscape shooting, and with the zuiko having the edge on sharpness as well. Then again if I ever want to do some close up I have the excellent Takumar 50mm macro which you reviewed in another video to fall back on so I suppose I'm a bit biased
I have the Olympus 35mm F/2 version and love it. I am interested in the Zeiss Jena Flektogon f2 4 for it's minimum close focusing distance. I also use the Voigtlander 42.5mm F/0.95 which has a exceptional close focusing distance of 0.23M. This channel does encourage me to look at vintage lenses. Thanks for sharing.
That 35mm f2 sounds lovely - I've heard lots of good things about it. The Flektogon is one of my favourite lenses and probably the one I use the most - very versatile and great image quality too. If you get one, I don't think you'll be disappointed.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed the video. I agree, the Zuiko is the nicer lens in many respects; it's sharper and has nicer colour rendition. There's just something I like about that Flek though...
Very ilustrative vid, thanks! Happy owner of the zuikos: 24, 50, 135 and 200mm ... and shooting film now as well ( Olympus OM-2 N) Love street and architectural shooting. Your channel encoraged me to shoot film again (and digital Fujifilm XT 1 with adapter) Next purchase the 35mm!!!
Flektogon strongest side (in my humble opinion) is bigger motives. It renders distance in a fantastic way. With character and mood. For sharpness-freaks there are other more suitable alternatives.
I do like the Flek very much, and it's not always technical quality that makes a lens better. Must admit though, the more I use the Zuiko the more I'm warming to it! Many thanks for watching.
There‘s also the Olympus OM Zuiko 2.0/35mm, but I read the front element is supposedly very prone to scratches, because the glas material is rather soft
Big fan of the channel as I have a small collection of film cameras - which I actually do use - Zorki 4k, Leica M6, Om1, Om2 and a couple of medium format as well. I have the f1.8 50mm Zuiko and the 85mm f2 portrait for use with my OM1 but I occasionally need something a bit wider and have narrowed it down to the 35mm or 28mm f2.8 Zuiko - which would you go for ?
I guess it depends how wide you want to go... The 35 f2.8 is a very nice lens, and I've used it quite a bit. It always gives good sharpness and strong contrast. Lately though I've been using some 28 mils - at first I wasn't sure, and the extra width took a while to get used to, but eventually I've come to favour it over the 35mm angle. And if you go down this route, the Zuiko 28mm f2.8 is hard to beat!
8:30 and 9:04 I think Action Man took a sneaky half step backwards so he could check out lady doll and her hairstyle for the Olympus photoshoot. So there's a bit of difference in perspective.
Very nice videos,great content,great voice certainly 2nd in line next to Sir David Attenborough s voice Thank you very much I bought the Jena and I am happy with it on my Z6
Nice video sir, however, I have to disagree with your opinion on these lenses. The Zeiss lens is way more pleasing to the eye, less contrast which I love and a smoother look. The Olympus, as all Japanese lenses is higher in contrast which gives the appearance of sharpness but it is not sharper. Zeiss glass cannot be beat, whether it's a cheap Jena or a more expensive Planar the glass is the same.
Out of the blue if you have heard of the light lens lab they seem intent of replicating the Leica ii as a modern camera with a vintage feel and some Elcan lenses (3) all at f2.0 Just saying that is all....
It's seems a painfully obvious thing to say and you do mention on the fly about selling vintage cameras and lenses on..apart from ones lent and borrowed...presumably if you didn't you would be up to your neck in photo gear....and if one does make a mistake you can always buy an Identical item again...in fact I did this intentionally bought and sold the same camera twice... just saying really... you know....take care Nigel.. thanks.....
I've heard it a couple times in your videos, and I want to correct it - focusing distance does not change when you change sensor size. On mft it's not going to be halved, it stays exactly the same. Considering that your videos get quite significant amount of views I believe it's not OK to spread misconception. Maybe in one of your upcoming videos you should correct yourself.
It's not a misconception. If you notice, I always point out that what changes is the effective focal distance (the word 'effective' is important here) because a smaller sensor 'looks' only through the more central portion of the lens, giving an effective magnification. The lens itself does not change, as you correctly point out.
@@zenography7923 By focal distance you mean focal length? If so, it has nothing to do with what you say in the video - you talk about minimum focus distance. It has nothing to do with sensor size, focal length or 'effective' focal length. It's how far the lens can be positioned away from the focus plane - sensor or film. If you change the size of thar sensor, or film, the lens does not magically go twice as close to the sensor. The minimum focus distance will not magically become 9,5 cm instead of 19, it will stay exactly 19, no matter how small or large your sensor becomes. So it is a misconception, and you carry that on to the masses. Conduct a simple test - on your sony you can enable various crops. Enable something like a s35 crop and see if any of your lenses can suddenly focus closer. Spoiler - they cannot.
@@exooptik I think you may have missed the point. As I've already said, nothing about the lens physically changes, but a small sensor camera looks through the more central portion of the lens, so there is an effective, rather than an actual, change in focal length. Effective minimum focus distance of any lens will change according to sensor size - but only effectively!
@@zenography7923 I think you can't own your mistake. There is no such thing as 'effective minimum focus distance'. In the video you say on mft the minimum focus distance is going to be 9,5cm. It's not. It's OK to be wrong, but it's not OK to not own your mistakes. I am a subscriber by the way, and I've seen other people point it out under other videos of yours. Minimum focus distance will not change depending on the crop, it has nothing to do with focal length as well.
@@exooptik I'm more than happy to be corrected, however I can't agree in this case. Let's take the Jupiter 8, a 50mm lens with a minimum focus distance of 1 metre. On a full frame body it's a 50mm lens that focuses down to 1 metre.. Put that same lens on a micro four thirds body and it's still a 50mm lens that focuses down to 1 metre, but because the field of view is different, it behaves like a 100mm lens that focuses down to 50cm. It works - I've tried it! Perhaps this link might help to clarify: www.microfournerds.com/blog/adaptedlensesm43
I remember buying the Zuiko 35mm f/2.8 from the big Jessops in Hinckley Road, Leicester where ELO's Mr Blue Sky was often playing in the corridor. The new lens was drop dead gorgeous, the only Zuiko prime that I got separately, except for foolishly the 180mm f/2.8, which cost me and I hardly ever used. Those Olympus wide angles were so tiny that adding just a UV filter seemed to make them a lot bigger!
I like the Zuiko 35 2.8 very much, and the 3.5 is lovely too!
One of the best vintage lens review channels! I got inspired and bought the CZ Jena 35 2.4 on Ebay. It is in a very good condition. I will use it for videography. Thanks for the inspiration!
Many thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
Did you try The Jena ?
@@ardamey Sure! It's kind of my all rounder lens. Amazing about this lens: it's almost like a macro.
Hello Nigel, it‘s a pleasure to watch this video, thanks! 35mm is a focal length I like very much. Oftentimes the 50 mil is a little bit to tight. The Minolta MD 1.8/35mm (an exquisite lens as it gathers a lot of light) as well as the Nikkor AI-S 2.8/35 are also both highly recommendable. Both of them are bitingly sharp and crisp. The Olympus I don’t have. A little nice piece of equipment! I assume the colors it delivers are likewise the colors of the Minolta, exuberant and vivid! If you have questions about both lenses, don’t hesitate to ask. Best wishes, Ralf
The Minolta and Nikon do sound nice, I'll look out for them. I've found Minolta and Olympus to be very similar in their approach to colour, exuberant and vivid as you say, the Minoltas very slightly more so!
Zenography If you wish, we could exchange contact details and I‘ll send you some nice sample pictures of the lenses made with the Nikon Z6.
Great video as always. I would have preferred a real world comparison with your usual shots (tree trunk, locked gate, colourful beach balls etc.) and some black and white comparisons, but I suppose it wasn't practical to do at the time.
I have to say that on the evidence you've shown I prefer the zuiko. I think the physical size difference is a big factor, especially if going out with a few primes in your pockets to do some street/landscape shooting, and with the zuiko having the edge on sharpness as well.
Then again if I ever want to do some close up I have the excellent Takumar 50mm macro which you reviewed in another video to fall back on so I suppose I'm a bit biased
It's true the Zuiko is a bit sharper, and more portable too, but for sheer versatility the Flektogon is very, very hard to beat!
I have the Olympus 35mm F/2 version and love it. I am interested in the Zeiss Jena Flektogon f2 4 for it's minimum close focusing distance. I also use the Voigtlander 42.5mm F/0.95 which has a exceptional close focusing distance of 0.23M. This channel does encourage me to look at vintage lenses. Thanks for sharing.
That 35mm f2 sounds lovely - I've heard lots of good things about it. The Flektogon is one of my favourite lenses and probably the one I use the most - very versatile and great image quality too. If you get one, I don't think you'll be disappointed.
@@zenography7923 Thanks. I want one LOL
Happy new year, thank you for another great video, I thought the Zuiko lens won hands down apart from the real close up shots.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed the video. I agree, the Zuiko is the nicer lens in many respects; it's sharper and has nicer colour rendition. There's just something I like about that Flek though...
Could you please review kipon/iberit 35mm f2.4? I am very curious about a professional lens comparison
Happy New Year indeed 2021
Indeed!
Hi, just wondered if you would know why my Flek is only F2.4-F16 ?
You recently got yourself a silver 9cm elmar f4 lens so can M fit lenses be converted to screw fit with an adaptor..... pls.?
Is this MC Flektogon 35mm 2.4
Radioactive Thorium?
Very ilustrative vid, thanks!
Happy owner of the zuikos: 24, 50, 135 and 200mm ... and shooting film now as well ( Olympus OM-2 N)
Love street and architectural shooting. Your channel encoraged me to shoot film again (and digital Fujifilm XT 1 with adapter)
Next purchase the 35mm!!!
The Zuiko 35mm is lovely; glad you're enjoying film again!
Flektogon strongest side (in my humble opinion) is bigger motives. It renders distance in a fantastic way. With character and mood. For sharpness-freaks there are other more suitable alternatives.
I do like the Flek very much, and it's not always technical quality that makes a lens better. Must admit though, the more I use the Zuiko the more I'm warming to it! Many thanks for watching.
@@zenography7923 Very true! And big thanks for the test!
excellent video sir
and i found your voice is so relaxing
iam a fan of vintage lenses myself and for me this channel is a gem
subscriber +1
Many thanks, glad you're enjoying the channel!
There‘s also the Olympus OM Zuiko 2.0/35mm, but I read the front element is supposedly very prone to scratches, because the glas material is rather soft
I've heard about the Oly f2 35mm but haven't used one; apparently they're very nice indeed!
Big fan of the channel as I have a small collection of film cameras - which I actually do use - Zorki 4k, Leica M6, Om1, Om2 and a couple of medium format as well. I have the f1.8 50mm Zuiko and the 85mm f2 portrait for use with my OM1 but I occasionally need something a bit wider and have narrowed it down to the 35mm or 28mm f2.8 Zuiko - which would you go for ?
I guess it depends how wide you want to go... The 35 f2.8 is a very nice lens, and I've used it quite a bit. It always gives good sharpness and strong contrast. Lately though I've been using some 28 mils - at first I wasn't sure, and the extra width took a while to get used to, but eventually I've come to favour it over the 35mm angle. And if you go down this route, the Zuiko 28mm f2.8 is hard to beat!
8:30 and 9:04 I think Action Man took a sneaky half step backwards so he could check out lady doll and her hairstyle for the Olympus photoshoot. So there's a bit of difference in perspective.
That's quite possible - he's a very cheeky fellow!
Very nice videos,great content,great voice certainly 2nd in line next to Sir David Attenborough s voice
Thank you very much
I bought the Jena and I am happy with it on my Z6
Thanks, glad you're enjoying the videos! That Jena is pretty hard to beat...
Fairly obvious question I would think...but if you want to shoot wide open (f2. 8) mainly what film speed is best??
Depends on how bright your day or subject is.
Keep the Olympus and get the Olympus 50 mm 3.5 if you want to get close. The 35mm was never meant for macro.
Can u explained what the different flektogon Red MC & 35mm prakticar white MC?? thank you sir
I haven't used the Prakticar 35mm lens so I can't comment I'm afraid. Sorry I can't be of more help!
They are the same. The only difference is the mount. I have used them both.
I think you meant a hexagon and not an octagon in reference to the zeiss out of focus on f8
Whoops, thanks for pointing it out!
Nice video sir, however, I have to disagree with your opinion on these lenses. The Zeiss lens is way more pleasing to the eye, less contrast which I love and a smoother look. The Olympus, as all Japanese lenses is higher in contrast which gives the appearance of sharpness but it is not sharper. Zeiss glass cannot be beat, whether it's a cheap Jena or a more expensive Planar the glass is the same.
I do love the CZJ, although I do think it loses out slightly in sharpness. Overall however, I probably prefer it, especially as it can shoot so close!
Why do you call the Olympus lenses Ricoh?
Not Ricoh but Zuiko!
Out of the blue if you have heard of the light lens lab they seem intent of replicating the Leica ii as a modern camera with a vintage feel and some Elcan lenses (3) all at f2.0
Just saying that is all....
It's seems a painfully obvious thing to say and you do mention on the fly about selling vintage cameras and lenses on..apart from ones lent and borrowed...presumably if you didn't you would be up to your neck in photo gear....and if one does make a mistake you can always buy an Identical item again...in fact I did this intentionally bought and sold the same camera twice... just saying really... you know....take care Nigel.. thanks.....
Hey Phil! I've done that too - why did I sell that camera?! Oh well, back to ebay I guess!
I've heard it a couple times in your videos, and I want to correct it - focusing distance does not change when you change sensor size. On mft it's not going to be halved, it stays exactly the same. Considering that your videos get quite significant amount of views I believe it's not OK to spread misconception. Maybe in one of your upcoming videos you should correct yourself.
It's not a misconception. If you notice, I always point out that what changes is the effective focal distance (the word 'effective' is important here) because a smaller sensor 'looks' only through the more central portion of the lens, giving an effective magnification. The lens itself does not change, as you correctly point out.
@@zenography7923 By focal distance you mean focal length? If so, it has nothing to do with what you say in the video - you talk about minimum focus distance. It has nothing to do with sensor size, focal length or 'effective' focal length. It's how far the lens can be positioned away from the focus plane - sensor or film. If you change the size of thar sensor, or film, the lens does not magically go twice as close to the sensor. The minimum focus distance will not magically become 9,5 cm instead of 19, it will stay exactly 19, no matter how small or large your sensor becomes. So it is a misconception, and you carry that on to the masses.
Conduct a simple test - on your sony you can enable various crops. Enable something like a s35 crop and see if any of your lenses can suddenly focus closer. Spoiler - they cannot.
@@exooptik I think you may have missed the point. As I've already said, nothing about the lens physically changes, but a small sensor camera looks through the more central portion of the lens, so there is an effective, rather than an actual, change in focal length. Effective minimum focus distance of any lens will change according to sensor size - but only effectively!
@@zenography7923 I think you can't own your mistake. There is no such thing as 'effective minimum focus distance'. In the video you say on mft the minimum focus distance is going to be 9,5cm. It's not. It's OK to be wrong, but it's not OK to not own your mistakes.
I am a subscriber by the way, and I've seen other people point it out under other videos of yours. Minimum focus distance will not change depending on the crop, it has nothing to do with focal length as well.
@@exooptik I'm more than happy to be corrected, however I can't agree in this case. Let's take the Jupiter 8, a 50mm lens with a minimum focus distance of 1 metre. On a full frame body it's a 50mm lens that focuses down to 1 metre.. Put that same lens on a micro four thirds body and it's still a 50mm lens that focuses down to 1 metre, but because the field of view is different, it behaves like a 100mm lens that focuses down to 50cm. It works - I've tried it! Perhaps this link might help to clarify: www.microfournerds.com/blog/adaptedlensesm43