| I need to dust more often |
I put the two lenses on my digital canon eos with an adaptor and went for a walk around the area I live, in taking pictures with both of them. Here are my overall impressions.
- Both lenses perform remarkably similar. If there are any differences, they are too small to be important. In the following picture, I shot both of them wide open and checked the centre sharpness - overall they both perform similarly
| Click for bigger |
- Another picture taken wide open but looking now at the edge of the frame. Sharpness is quite good actually but you do see a lot of purple fridging. I think the older f/3.5 is doing worse here. Despite that I wouldn't call this a deal breaking.
| Click for bigger |
- At about f/5.6 I struggle to see any difference in performance between them. Both just as sharp, both of equal contrast.
| Click for bigger |
- Flare is the area that you will see a big difference in them. The newer f/2.8 does much better - it is multicoated. Keep in mind that the older f/3.5 came together with a very nice *metal* lens hood whilst the newer f/2.8 with a cheap plastic. Still, if you can source the older metal one it will work well on the f/2.8.
| Click for bigger |
- Both lenses peak at f/8 - performance becomes indistinguishable. Both very sharp corner to corner with no vignetting.
| Click for bigger |
- Talking about vignetting, the older f/3.5 performs much better as you would expect. Vignetting is practically gone by f/4 on both lenses.
| Click for bigger |
- Comparing centre sharpness for both lenses seem to be a draw. Both are just as sharp in the centre.
| Click for bigger |
- Comparing edge sharpness is slightly different. Performance is very very similar although push come to shove I would say that the f/3.5 is slightly sharper. But whether you will ever notice that is a different question.
| Click for bigger |
- The newer f/2.8 is a more practical lens, it has 7 aperture settings compared to 5 of the older f/3.5 and is 1/2 stop faster meaning a slightly brighter viewfinder.
- Using them in real life, I have come to like the older f/3.5 more - why? No specific reason. Possibly because I have associated it with some of my favourite picture. It is more likely to reach out for it compared to the f2.8 but there is no reason or rhyme behind it.
| Zuiko 28 f/3.5 |
| Zuiko 28 f/3.5 |
- But the f/2.8 is no slouch - just as sharp, more practical, faster and with better contrast and flare resistance. For many this is a winning recipe.
| Zuiko 28 f/2.8 |
| Zuiko 28 f/2.8 |
Two great lenses to have and use. Deciding which one to get is simple. Buy the one that is in better condition. If both are in the same condition, buy the cheapest. If both are the same price buy the 2.8.
The difference in performance between them is too small to be meaningful. Me, I will stick to the demon I know - the 28f/3.5 - but the newer f/2.8 is not going anywhere any time soon.
Comments
Post a Comment