Gems of the OM Zuiko lineup.

[glassportal]

Hi guys,
I'm sure the answers are somewhere in the 145 page thread but i got about 10 pages in and got exhausted - please forgive me. I just purchased an OM-4Ti and am looking to obtain a 35/50/85 kit. There seem to be a lot of options however. Generally I'd say ill make quite a few exceptions for IQ and sharpness however I'm not a speed demon and don't think I need the 50 1.2 or 85 1.2 as they look enormous. How does the 50mm f2 macro compare to the others in size/sharpness/look? Im also a bit confused by the 85mm f2 and 90mm f2 macro. Neither look enormous - could someone enlighten me to the differences (besides price and macro capability).

I don't mind spending a bit to get the kit I want right off the bat. Filter sharing would be nice but not essential.

Cheers,
Alex

 

[kshapero]

Get the 50/1.4. An all around gem

 

[ferider]

Skip 35, use 28 instead. And the gems for me are

28/2, 50/1.2 and 180/2.8

The 50/1.2 is small, pretty much same size as the 50/2. And I like it better than 50/1.8 or 50/1.4, the 1.2 is alll around a better general purpose lens.

If 180 is too long for you, pick the 85/2, 90/2 or 100/2. I am using a "lowly" Bokina (90/2.5) instead.

Roland.

 

[Ljós]

Never tried it myself, but apparently the 100 f2.8 is also very good, very compact and comparatively cheap. Might be an option, too, on the long end of your wishlist.

Greetings, Ljós

 

[gustavoAvila]

With regard to "gems", my choices are the 50mm f1.4 (s/n > 1.1 million) and the 100 f2.8 (MC). Both these lenses are affordable and are excellent performers.

FWIW, I own or have owned OM Zuiko's from 18 to 600mm. While there other excellent Zuiko's, the more exotic ones can be quite pricey. As such, I would recommend trying out some of the more affordable lenses to see how you like the system before spending big bucks.

 

[Bschif]

Which do u guys think is the better choice among the 28's, the f2.8 or f3.5?

 

[gustavoAvila]

Which do u guys think is the better choice among the 28's, the f2.8 or f3.5?

The 3.5...

 

[marcr1230]

85/2.0 is lovely as is the 100/2.8 , the 50/1.4 also gets my vote.
I'm not impressed w the 35/2.8

 

[Maiku]

35mm f2
50mm f1.4
85mm f2
100mm f2.8

Owned them all. Lovely lenses.

If I could have afforded them I would have bought:

28mm f2
40mm f2
90mm f2
100mm f2

 

[plummerl]

Of course there's always the 35-80/2.8. A very remarkable lens, probably the best zoom lens that Olympus ever made for the OM series. It's also great on my E-M1.

 

[TXForester]

I like my 100/2.8

 

[kuuan]

With regard to "gems", my choices are the 50mm f1.4 (s/n > 1.1 million) and the 100 f2.8 (MC)....

note the >1.1 million and the (MC)!
- the 1.4/50 has gone through design changes and those with a serial number over 1.1 million are considered to be the better lens.
- Generally early single coated OM lenses imo have very weak coatings. You may like that, but if you care for good coating avoid those which have a letter in front of the "Zuiko", e.g. "E-Zuiko" and take those which say "Zuiko MC" or "Zuiko" only.

 

[newspaperguy]

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.

 

[kuuan]

as for lenses I second Rick, those I have experience with and find very good are 2.8/24 ( the smallest 24mm SLR lens ) 1.8/50, and 2.8/100

 

[sreed2006]

My votes are: 35/2, 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 "made in Japan", and 85/2.

Olympus never made an 85/1.2 lens in OM mount that I am aware of. The 85/2 is not a large lens, and it is a winner for portrait work. If you meant the 55/1.2, then, yes that is a large lens, and I would not recommend it because at wide apertures the out-of-focus areas are distracting and unpleasant in some situations (dappled light through trees, being one where the 55/1.2 doesn't work well).

A Zuiko 50/1.4 is a fine lens. The 50/1.8 is cheap as chips, and also a nice lens, especially the "made in Japan" version.

While the 35/2 has been belittled in some reviews I've seen, I have a 35/2 that is excellent by any standard.

As for the 50/2 and 90/2 macros, not too long ago on the radio I heard them referred to as "world class lenses." The out of focus areas with these lenses just melt like butter, and the in-focus areas are very sharp. They are heavy, though, and not all-day carry-around lenses. The 90/2 is the best lens I have ever used for studio style portraits. While other lenses got the image, the 90/2 made both me and the models/victims go "Wow!"

Happy hunting.

 

[glassportal]

Thanks for all the help everyone. I just had a bit of a read and with all the recommendations might have a hunt for a well priced 50mm 1.2. The 28/2 looks great.

In regards to the 90mm vs 100mm for portrait work (both detail and full length) - what is the consensus? Im a stickler for color and the ED element in the 100mm looks interesting. I probably wouldn't use the macro ability of the 90mm.

 

[gustavoAvila]

Both are superb, but heavy and expensive (in comparison with the 85 and 100 f2.8).

For portraiture, extreme sharpness is not necessary (or even desirable) for most subjects.

 

[kuzano]

Remember this about the 50/1.4

Remember this about the 50/1.4

Get the 50/1.4. An all around gem

There was the silver nose, the other nose and variations such as that. I think the lens was manufactured differently two or three times during it's production.

The only thing I have heard repeatedly and consistently that you want to find one with the serial number over 1 million... 7 digits.

I've also heard on some of the variants that for the money, You have to open one stop to get better sharpness and for that many people think the 50/1.8 for the money is as good a lens for less money (more supply in the used market) than the 50/1.4 open one stop.

I've had a half dozen of the 1.4 lenses (never found a 7 digit example) and found them a little inconsistent wide open.

 

[glassportal]

Both are superb, but heavy and expensive (in comparison with the 85 and 100 f2.8).

For portraiture, extreme sharpness is not necessary (or even desirable) for most subjects.

I really like razor sharp portraits, I'm aware that this isn't the norm and that there are a few pitfalls here - but nonetheless its my preference. Would you say there are many differences in rendering at various distances or perhaps in color acuity?

 

[kuzano]

If you are a purist you won't like this suggestion.

If you are a purist you won't like this suggestion.

If you are open to something besides Zuiko, Vivitar made both a 24 f2.0 and a 28 f2.0 that were made for Vivitar by Komine. (vivitar sn starts with 28)

Fast wide angle and stupendous image quality. I just sold one, and they appear quite often on eBay. I've seen them sell for up to $300, and I just sold mine in near mint condition for $82, plus ship.

Also Close Focus. They were made in many mounts and Olympus OM was one of them.

I was very happy with the performance, but I am no longer using legacy lenses on digital. I used it on both my OM-1 and digital EM5