Longer lenses in OM mount

ped

ped

Small brown dog
Local time
8:03 PM
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
979
Location
England
View My Gallery
I'm really enjoying my OM1 and currently have a 28 f2.8 and a 50 f1.2

I'd rather like something in the 135-200mm range and have seen a 200 f2.8 and 135 2.8 near me going at reasonable prices.

I suppose if I'm going 'long' then the 200 seems sensible but I'm not clear on how well regarded the various long lenses are despite being fairly clued up in anything less than 100mm

Any suggestions? Price is a factor but I'm willing to pay more if there's a 'best' which is a little more 😉
 
The 180/2.8 served me well for many years..
Still have some pics on the wall taken with it..
They seem to be reasonably priced these days.
Never got on with the 135/2.8
 
Thanks guys

Yes I meant to say 180mm rather than 200 in my first post.

How does the 135 macro compare the the 2.8? What didn't you like about it?
 
A caution on the Vivitar 70-210.....

A caution on the Vivitar 70-210.....

TXForester said:
If you don't mind third party zooms, then the Vivitar 70-210mm f3.5 is nice. I've had mine for 30 years and sometimes use it on a digital camera too.
Click to expand...

Vivitar used at least a half dozen manufacturers to fill the specs of the 70-210. The best 3 were, as I recall, Kiron, Tokina, and Cosina.

Here is a Robertstech breakdown on the many flavors of the 70-210 lenses and how to read the serial number to determine mfr. I had 3 of the Kirons and a Tokina. Check the SN identify table well down on this page:

http://www.robertstech.com/vivitar.htm

I used my Kirons and tokina for great results. I also have used them on my PEN m4/3 camera's with adaptors.
 
I have an OM Zuiko 180mm f2.8. It's a great lens.
I compared side by side on the 5Dii against the Zeiss Contax 180mm f2.8 Sonnar.
Very little to differentiate between my two copies of these lenses.
The OM has a bit less sharpness at Wide open. The Contax has a bit more CA.

I also have the Angeniuex f3.5/70-210. It's a Killer 2 ring zoom. One of my best lenses.
 
Olympus made an excellent 65-200 mm f4 zoom, which I have. All of them suffered from a problem that caused lubricants in the lens to release vapors that destroyed one of the lens elements by etching the surface. Mine is destroyed like that, as is every single one I have ever seen. John Hermanson, the OM repair guru and former Olympus service manager, says no repair parts are available; the lenses are all useless paperweights. Damned shame; it was a very good lens. I shot this with it when I was 15 years old, 24 years ago.

amaryllis.jpg
 
pagpow said:
ped,

You might find Gary Reese's OM lens tests useful

http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=10&id=45&Itemid=97

Giorgio
Click to expand...

No offense intended, but unless he tested more than one example don't take these as totally accurate - I say that b/c his results for the single coated 100/2.8 and the sc 135/3.5 don't agree w my experience with Nex and A7 bodies. My single examples are v. Good. The 135/3.5 is ridiculously cheap and compact (as konikon stated). Same for the 200/5. Just my 10¢ worth😀
 
Shac said:
No offense intended, but unless he tested more than one example don't take these as totally accurate - I say that b/c his results for the single coated 100/2.8 and the sc 135/3.5 don't agree w my experience with Nex and A7 bodies. My single examples are v. Good. The 135/3.5 is ridiculously cheap and compact (as konikon stated). Same for the 200/5. Just my 10¢ worth😀
Click to expand...

Agreed. The reliability of Gary's tests unfortunately is further undermined by the considerable variation in test results using the same lenses on differnt bodies. Looking at his test results, I am convinced that some of his bodies were simply out of spec, so that his test results merely measure how well the lenses performed on his camera body. My personal experience is that having a body overhauled and mirror angle checked and adjusted can favorably affect lens performance.
 
Btw, having owned the first (Kiron) and third (Komine) versions of the famous Vivitar series 1 70-210 zooms, i can say both are good lenses overall. However the Tamron SP 80-200 f2.8 (I have 2 of these) is noticeably superior, particularly on the long end, with better sharpness and bokeh. The ED glass may have something to do with it and the much brighter and constant f2.8 aperture makes critical focusing much easier. It is quite sharp wide open when used with proper technique. The Tamron is much less common, more expensive, heavier, and doesn't have a macro feature like the Series 1 zooms, but it does use adaptall 2 mounts so that you can use the lens perfectly with most camera brands. I consider this lens the best lens in its range available for the OM mount.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Olympus made an excellent 65-200 mm f4 zoom, which I have. All of them suffered from a problem that caused lubricants in the lens to release vapors that destroyed one of the lens elements by etching the surface. Mine is destroyed like that, as is every single one I have ever seen. John Hermanson, the OM repair guru and former Olympus service manager, says no repair parts are available; the lenses are all useless paperweights. Damned shame; it was a very good lens. I shot this with it when I was 15 years old, 24 years ago.

amaryllis.jpg
Click to expand...
That's interesting Chris. Had One of those perhaps 18 years ago but had not much use for longer than 100mm so sold it. Probably a good thing. I later needed a 200 but wanted to pack light so I found a good deal on the 200 f5 and that is my longest Zuiko OM mount lens now. Really light and compact.
 
Shac said:
No offense intended, but unless he tested more than one example don't take these as totally accurate - I say that b/c his results for the single coated 100/2.8 and the sc 135/3.5 don't agree w my experience with Nex and A7 bodies. My single examples are v. Good. The 135/3.5 is ridiculously cheap and compact (as konikon stated). Same for the 200/5. Just my 10¢ worth😀
Click to expand...

No offense taken, Shac. Actually, I find that information useful. I spent some time trying to decide whether to include my observation that opinions differed, particularly when looking at the performance of some of these lenses on digital bodies, but eventually decided not to since the OP's request did not include digital bodies.
 
Here are a couple of test shots from my 200/5 after I repaired it. I bought it from a camera shop where it had sat on the shelf for years, unprotected. It had been dropped, jamming the aperture. It was a matter of removing the mount, and moving the actuator lever out from under where it was jammed. I also removed the rear optical block for a cleaning. The front was okay.

The photo in the top half shows focus at the far right on the fence, it being closest to the camera. The bottom half shows focus at infinity. I like how one can make out the seed heads of the grass along the tree line in the background. A very good lens indeed. I paid $15 for it.

14837954525_778ba29281_z.jpg

200mm Test by br1078phot, on Flickr

More of the test at: https://flic.kr/s/aHsjZQtC5p

PF

BTW: I have that 65-200, Chris, but haven't tested it yet. I'll keep that in mind when I do.
 
zuiko85 said:
That's interesting Chris. Had One of those perhaps 18 years ago but had not much use for longer than 100mm so sold it. Probably a good thing. I later needed a 200 but wanted to pack light so I found a good deal on the 200 f5 and that is my longest Zuiko OM mount lens now. Really light and compact.
Click to expand...

The 65-200 OM lens was cool because it focused very close in its "Macro" mode, but was still very sharp. That's how I did the flower photo I posted. I shot that when I was 15 at the botanical gardens in downtown Fort Wayne. They had a flower photo contest, open to kids and adults, and I entered it with that photo a few months after I shot it. Won 1st place, which got me a $200 gift certificate for a local camera store. I used it to get my first good professional-level tripod, a Manfrotto 3011 that I still own and use today, 24 years later!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Tamron Adaptall-2 lenses, which ones are the better ones, particularly in zoom lenses.
Replies
6
Views
3K
nikon_sam
nikon_sam
Keith
Which Sony A7 would be best to pair with OM Zuikos?
3 4 5
Replies
89
Views
12K
shawn
S
C
The Balloon game begins - Pentax K Mount vs Olympus OM Zuiko
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
4K
CharlesDAMorgan
C
J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
9
Views
1K
aoresteen
aoresteen
A
Travel Gear and General EDC
Replies
14
Views
2K
wlewisiii
W
Back
Top Bottom