Gems of the OM Zuiko lineup.

I can recommend the 35/2 and 50/1.4, as well as the 50/1.8.

I've borrowed the 21/3.5 and it's very good.

I'd like the 85/2, have a look at Jane Brown's portraits with that lens.

Edit: I used to own the 28/3.5 and 200/4, both very good lenses. I used the 200/4 for portraits and landscapes. It was a very good portrait lens, even though "only" f4 it had shallow dof at closest focus, and smooth bokeh.
 
Surely the joy of all these lenses is that they are found everywhere and can be dirt cheap. You just watch and wait and one turns up at a silly price like a fiver. (Unlike Canon which I've often had to pay six or seven pounds for... )

Regards, David
 
I wish I'd kept my OM 24/2.8. I still have the 28/3.5, 35/2, 50/1.8 and 100/2.8. All excellent lenses.
 
35mm f2, 50mm f1.2 and the 85mm f2 are probably my favourites.
 
newspaperguy said:
100/2.8 is a must. 50/1.4 is great but pricey... I'd get a cheapo 50/1.8 first, just to see bow you like it. If you're gonna go wide, go wide! 24/2.8 is my fave.
yes, I have them all and more,
Incidentally, they all work well on digital bodies, too.
Click to expand...

I second this. Not only wide, but 'right up close'
 
most zuikos are excellent and weigh above average compared to any brand.

50/1.4 late
24/2.8
28/2
35/2 late
40/2
21/3.5
55/1.2


but here's my list of absolute worldclass lenses & standouts:

21/2
35-80 2.8 zoom
50 1.2
55 1.2 (at f2)
50/2 macro
90/2 macro
100/2

i think the 180 2.8 and 180/2 are also up there but I never owned them.

for a while i had 20+ zuikos, then i switched more to rf camp at least for the classic focal lenghts.

now in OM I remain 21/2 and the 35-80 zoom. and an early 50 1.8 covers the 'compact' needs.
 
Alex aka glassportal,

Your originally stated objective of a 3 lens kit is practical, and wise.

But in the world of Zuiko lenses, it really is hard to stop at 3. Just so you know.


Olympus OM by sreed2006, on Flickr

I would be at a loss to tell you the best of these. I like them all.
 
sreed2006 said:
Alex aka glassportal,

Your originally stated objective of a 3 lens kit is practical, and wise.

But in the world of Zuiko lenses, it really is hard to stop at 3. Just so you know.


Olympus OM by sreed2006, on Flickr

I would be at a loss to tell you the best of these. I like them all.
Click to expand...

I declare you the Imelda Marcos of Zuiko lenses ;-) ;-)
 
sreed2006 said:
Alex aka glassportal,

Your originally stated objective of a 3 lens kit is practical, and wise.

But in the world of Zuiko lenses, it really is hard to stop at 3. Just so you know.


Olympus OM by sreed2006, on Flickr

I would be at a loss to tell you the best of these. I like them all.
Click to expand...


As we say in OZ .... 'Strewth!' :eek:
 
I used to use OM1 and OM2n to shoot weddings and portraits in the early 1980s and then, almost by accident, moved to Canon and then Nikon. I'veowned a few OM bodies in the intervening years but I'm now building a small collection of lenses as an alternative to a Leica set (well, the OM2n is only fractionally larger than an M6 and the glass is exceptional.)

My current set up:

- OM2n
- OM2SP
- 24mm / f2.8
- 35mm / f2
- 50mm / f1.4
- 100mm / f2.8

I don't need f1.2 50mm lenses and the 100mm / f2.8 is a beautiful lens, a third of the price of the 85mm/f2 and only marginally slower. I usually carry 24/50mm or 35/100mm. Occasionally, 24/50/100mm and, with just one body, it fits more than comfortably into my Billingham Hadley. I shoot mostly travel and landscapes but like to dabble in street / reportage.

This kit is very discreet, not hugely expensive and yet extremely good quality.
 
Though they're not for a "standard kit", my OM favorites are clearly the 180/2, 250/2 and 350/2.8 ED -IF lenses.

Expensive and rare, but brilliant.

Texsport
 
There isn't much difference between the 100mm f2.8 and the 85mm f2. The main design difference is the minimum focussing distance (1m vs. 0.85m). Olympus patented a 'close focussing correction' whereby the spacing of the front-to-rear lens elements changed at close focussing. The 85mm has it and the 100mm does not. That aside there's not much difference between them, hence the 100mm is better value (because its cheaper). They are both great portrait lenses with a wonderfully smooth out-of-focus. Any of the standard 50mm lenses are fine but I favour the middle-of-the-road f1.4. The f2 MACRO is a big lens. Its the sharpest (of just about all the Zuikos, probably) but I only use it for macro, its just too bulky. The 24mm f2.8 is a gem, one of the best wide angle lenses, period. The first series of Olympus lenses (85mm f2, 100mm f2.8, 24mm f2.8 and the standard 50mm lenses) emphasised compactness. The second series were all f2 (e.g. 50mm MACRO, 100mm, 90mm) and, it seems, size and weight (and cost) were no longer constraints. They are higher spec, no doubt, but they are also bigger, heavier and a lot more expensive. I use the 24mm f2.8, the 50mm f1.4 and the 85mm f2. If I knew what I know now, I might have bought a 100mm f2.8 instead of the 85mm. The 50mm f2 MACRO I use for copying work only.
 
Going against the grain somewhat, I love my 50mm 1.4 silvernose with a very low serial number - supposedly terrible but gives absolutly beautiful photographs - wouldn't swap it for anything else (well maybe a 1.2)...
I was also impressed with my 28mm 2.8, and I found the 50mm 1.8 'made in japan' very ordinary (for colour photos anyway - running some b&w through it at the moment....).
But to be honest you probably won't be unhappy with any of the primes (you'll probably end up with versions of each of them - that's what zuikos do to ya).
 
eko said:
Going against the grain somewhat, I love my 50mm 1.4 silvernose with a very low serial number - supposedly terrible but gives absolutly beautiful photographs - wouldn't swap it for anything else (well maybe a 1.2)...
I was also impressed with my 28mm 2.8, and I found the 50mm 1.8 'made in japan' very ordinary (for colour photos anyway - running some b&w through it at the moment....).
But to be honest you probably won't be unhappy with any of the primes (you'll probably end up with versions of each of them - that's what zuikos do to ya).
Click to expand...

Interesting, I did the same thing. I settled for a low serial number 50 1.4 silvernose. Not a Summilux-killer, but I like it.

Greetings, Ljós
 
Zuiko gems

Zuiko gems

I have over 30 Zuikos. My favorites are:

18 f3.5 -- incredibly low distortion (almost none)

28 f2.0 -- sharp with pleasing liquid quality to images

35 f2.8 shift (rare mc version) -- aside from convenient shift operation, renders skin tones beautifully

50 f2 macro -- sharp with beautiful bokeh

90 f2 macro and 100 f2 macro -- sharp with gorgeous bokeh and rendering

35-80 f2.8 -- all round most useful Zuiko, sharp as a prime with beautiful rendering.

I have alot of other great Zuikos (21 f2, 24 f2, 24 f2.8 mc, 24 shift, 35 f2, 50 f1.4 and 1.8, 50 f3.5 macro, 300 f4.5 mc, 75-150 f4. I really like them all, but the ones i listed above are my absolute favorites.
 
Ljós said:
Interesting, I did the same thing. I settled for a low serial number 50 1.4 silvernose. Not a Summilux-killer, but I like it.

Greetings, Ljós
Click to expand...

Greetings - glad you found the same thing. I've never understood the disdain it gets on forums - I found it quite beautiful.
 
eko said:
Greetings - glad you found the same thing. I've never understood the disdain it gets on forums - I found it quite beautiful.
Click to expand...

Yup. Check out the beautiful images RFF member 'Shab' graced the Zuikoholic-thread with (page 85 or so onward).
 
I adore the silver-nose lenses. Especially early 50/1.4's (make sure they're clean and use a lens hood)

My favorites, 24/2.8 - 50/1.4 - 85/2

(I can substitute the 28/2.8 for the 24 and the 75-150/4 for the 85)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom