Shade
Well-known
Its a hell of a lens for sure, tried my friend's before and its very very nice. Although I think its a bit too large for daily use for my tastes. And im a fixed person lens anyway..
Dektol Dan
Well-known
Very good for what it is but...
Very good for what it is but...
Although I found mine plenty sharp enough, I have to agree. I thought it a tad awkward to handle and dim after living with the primes. I shot a roll with it at the local state fair and haven't used it since, but then I paid only $35 for it. Zuiko lenses are normally killer, I rate them with the best, and my three OM SLRs are the only SLRs I've been able to say that I enjoy.
Very good for what it is but...
Although I found mine plenty sharp enough, I have to agree. I thought it a tad awkward to handle and dim after living with the primes. I shot a roll with it at the local state fair and haven't used it since, but then I paid only $35 for it. Zuiko lenses are normally killer, I rate them with the best, and my three OM SLRs are the only SLRs I've been able to say that I enjoy.
wblynch
Well-known
The 35-105 is actually made by Tokina. I have both the Zuiko and the Tokina (given to my daughter). Fortunately both are nearly mint - the Tokina appeared to have never been used.
They are well made and very handy but not a true Zuiko. Give great photos but are bulky on an OM.
There was a 35-70 made by Cosina (the f/3.5-4.8 I believe). I'm very pleased with the 35-70 f/ 3.5-4.5. The 3.6 is the cult lens.
People criticize the Zuiko 75-150 but I really like that lens. You can find them cheap because of the bad press. Small and compact with a built-in hood (that should always be employed in daylight) the 75-150 is a great addition to your travel kit.
They are well made and very handy but not a true Zuiko. Give great photos but are bulky on an OM.
There was a 35-70 made by Cosina (the f/3.5-4.8 I believe). I'm very pleased with the 35-70 f/ 3.5-4.5. The 3.6 is the cult lens.
People criticize the Zuiko 75-150 but I really like that lens. You can find them cheap because of the bad press. Small and compact with a built-in hood (that should always be employed in daylight) the 75-150 is a great addition to your travel kit.
Phalbert
Newbie
There was the 35-70 F3,5-4,5; the F3,6; the F4; indeed the cosina made F3,5-4,8 and eventually the 35-80 F2,8.
Is there any document proving that the 35-105 was indeed made by Tokina? A lot has been written about that but nobody I know off has come forward with proof. If it's a Tokina design, it's another story. Than we can assume Olympus has made sure they apply their own manufacture specifications. Interestingly it seems there is more in the net about the Zuiko (usually very positive) than for the Tokina. I own the Zuiko (and yes, I'm happy with it) and wish I could sometime compare with the Tokina.
Is there any document proving that the 35-105 was indeed made by Tokina? A lot has been written about that but nobody I know off has come forward with proof. If it's a Tokina design, it's another story. Than we can assume Olympus has made sure they apply their own manufacture specifications. Interestingly it seems there is more in the net about the Zuiko (usually very positive) than for the Tokina. I own the Zuiko (and yes, I'm happy with it) and wish I could sometime compare with the Tokina.
wblynch
Well-known
The only difference I see is the pattern of the rubber focusing ring and the Tokina has a plastic lens release button while the Zuiko has a metal one.
There is no way on Earth that these were made by different companies.
But it is still a wonderful lens.
There is no way on Earth that these were made by different companies.
But it is still a wonderful lens.
Phalbert
Newbie
And the specs are the same? Mininal focus, etc...? Mir.com has a lign stating that there were 2 versions of the Zuiko. Have you compared performance?Thanks.
Phalbert
Newbie
Looks like my last reply got lost somewhere in the realm of the net... Mir.com has a ligne where they state there were 2 versions of the Zuiko. Do you notice a difference in the pic quality between the Zuiko and the Tokina?
wblynch
Well-known
They are exactly the same. What else can I say?
Phalbert
Newbie
Thanks for your help.
ColinW
* Click *
Comparison at this link:
http://lists.tako.de/Olympus-OM/2004-03/msg02757.html
Here's the text:
I've always been curious about the occasional posts suggesting that the 35-105/3.5-4.5 might have been made by Tokina, presumably a custom version of the Tokina SMZ 35-105/3.5-4.3. So I invested (ha, ha) $44 in a Tokina to satisfy my curiosity. I can see where someone could at a casual look think they might be the same underneath. They are very similar in size, weight and overall appearance except for very different rubber focus/zoom ring covers. On closer inspection, I note the following:
1. Coating reflections are different colors, indicating different coating design/technology, and size/depths, indicating different internal element shape/configuration.
2. Front mounting of the front element of the zooming group is slightly different.
3. The Zuiko focusing helicoid takes considerably less rotation of the focus/zoom ring to get to its minimum of 1.5m and than the Tokina takes to go to its minimum of 1.6m
4. Zoom ring travel from 35-105mm is 20.8mm on the Zuik and 20.6mm on the Tokina.
5. Although the close focus mechanism uses the same principle of acting as an extension tube, the ring moves in opposite directions on the 2 lenses, locks into CU position on the Zuiko, but not on the Tokina and has a different extension length, 6.6mm on the Zuiko and 8.3mm on the Tokina.
6. Both have 6 blade diaphrams that point their fingers clockwise, but they are mounted opposite ways, with the fingers on the Zuiko toward the front and the Tokina to the back. The Zuiko hexagon is also a bit more symmetrical and consistent as it is stopped down.
7. The rear element of the Tokina is considerably larger and mounted into its cell differently than the Zuiko.
8. The finish of the visible part of the mount is classic Oly matte on the Zuiko and shiny on the Tokina.
9. The mechanisms that convey aperture setting to the pin on the rear and operate the diaphram from the other pin on the rear are quite different designs, with the Zuiko using the same basic design as in other Zuikos I've had apart.
10. The Zuiko has 16 elements in 12 groups and the Tokina has 16 in 13.
11. Ths Zuiko is styled pretty much like the 70-150 and 35-70/3.6 & 35.-4.5 except fot the close-up ring, which isn't on those zooms, but it is in the same relative position as the zoom rings on those 2 touch models. I assume the otherwise odd design of the CU ring with the groove around the middle is to differentiate it from the zoom rings on the others. The Tokina is styled just like the other Tokina zooms I have. Finish of the body surfaces is very similar.
12. The nose of the Tokina in front of the zoom ring is much shorter than on the Zuiko, so the Oly hood doesn't clamp on as securely. The Tokina hood, which I didn't get, is a screw-in design which apparently is calculated for use with a filter and uses something like an empty filter ring when a filter isn't used to keep the hood in the right place. The Oly solution of a clamp on hood that doesn't interfere with filter use is much nicer.
My conclusion? It is extremely unlikely that the Zuiko is an adaptation of the Tokina. There are just too many differences that wouldn't make sense if it were, especially things like reversing and changing the length of travel of the CU helicoid, changing the pitch of the focusing helicoid and changing the internal design of the auto aperture mechanisms. It also really does appear to me from the reflections that the internal elements differ quite a bit in surface curvatures and/or locations.
Which is the better lens? I'll probably never know. I'll try some pics with the Tokina, but the chances of carefully matched comparisons are slim to none. The zoom action on my Zuiko has always been quite stiff. The Tokina is nicer without being in any way loose or liable to creep. Build quality? A toss up from external visuals and handling. The CU rings are both plastic, but the Tokina doesn't look like it. Which one to use on a chrome OM-1? The Tokina 'cause it is a silver nose! (Just a joke folks! Easy now!) A compulsive Moose
Edit: By the way, the comparison wasn't done by me, it's an old link. Apologies for the long post.
http://lists.tako.de/Olympus-OM/2004-03/msg02757.html
Here's the text:
I've always been curious about the occasional posts suggesting that the 35-105/3.5-4.5 might have been made by Tokina, presumably a custom version of the Tokina SMZ 35-105/3.5-4.3. So I invested (ha, ha) $44 in a Tokina to satisfy my curiosity. I can see where someone could at a casual look think they might be the same underneath. They are very similar in size, weight and overall appearance except for very different rubber focus/zoom ring covers. On closer inspection, I note the following:
1. Coating reflections are different colors, indicating different coating design/technology, and size/depths, indicating different internal element shape/configuration.
2. Front mounting of the front element of the zooming group is slightly different.
3. The Zuiko focusing helicoid takes considerably less rotation of the focus/zoom ring to get to its minimum of 1.5m and than the Tokina takes to go to its minimum of 1.6m
4. Zoom ring travel from 35-105mm is 20.8mm on the Zuik and 20.6mm on the Tokina.
5. Although the close focus mechanism uses the same principle of acting as an extension tube, the ring moves in opposite directions on the 2 lenses, locks into CU position on the Zuiko, but not on the Tokina and has a different extension length, 6.6mm on the Zuiko and 8.3mm on the Tokina.
6. Both have 6 blade diaphrams that point their fingers clockwise, but they are mounted opposite ways, with the fingers on the Zuiko toward the front and the Tokina to the back. The Zuiko hexagon is also a bit more symmetrical and consistent as it is stopped down.
7. The rear element of the Tokina is considerably larger and mounted into its cell differently than the Zuiko.
8. The finish of the visible part of the mount is classic Oly matte on the Zuiko and shiny on the Tokina.
9. The mechanisms that convey aperture setting to the pin on the rear and operate the diaphram from the other pin on the rear are quite different designs, with the Zuiko using the same basic design as in other Zuikos I've had apart.
10. The Zuiko has 16 elements in 12 groups and the Tokina has 16 in 13.
11. Ths Zuiko is styled pretty much like the 70-150 and 35-70/3.6 & 35.-4.5 except fot the close-up ring, which isn't on those zooms, but it is in the same relative position as the zoom rings on those 2 touch models. I assume the otherwise odd design of the CU ring with the groove around the middle is to differentiate it from the zoom rings on the others. The Tokina is styled just like the other Tokina zooms I have. Finish of the body surfaces is very similar.
12. The nose of the Tokina in front of the zoom ring is much shorter than on the Zuiko, so the Oly hood doesn't clamp on as securely. The Tokina hood, which I didn't get, is a screw-in design which apparently is calculated for use with a filter and uses something like an empty filter ring when a filter isn't used to keep the hood in the right place. The Oly solution of a clamp on hood that doesn't interfere with filter use is much nicer.
My conclusion? It is extremely unlikely that the Zuiko is an adaptation of the Tokina. There are just too many differences that wouldn't make sense if it were, especially things like reversing and changing the length of travel of the CU helicoid, changing the pitch of the focusing helicoid and changing the internal design of the auto aperture mechanisms. It also really does appear to me from the reflections that the internal elements differ quite a bit in surface curvatures and/or locations.
Which is the better lens? I'll probably never know. I'll try some pics with the Tokina, but the chances of carefully matched comparisons are slim to none. The zoom action on my Zuiko has always been quite stiff. The Tokina is nicer without being in any way loose or liable to creep. Build quality? A toss up from external visuals and handling. The CU rings are both plastic, but the Tokina doesn't look like it. Which one to use on a chrome OM-1? The Tokina 'cause it is a silver nose! (Just a joke folks! Easy now!) A compulsive Moose
Edit: By the way, the comparison wasn't done by me, it's an old link. Apologies for the long post.
Phalbert
Newbie
Hi Colin, thanks a lot for all these infos. I really like to think that the Oly is a Zuiko indeed and not a copy or a Tokina made. (got nothing against Tokinas, I own quite a few of them...)