Longer lenses in OM mount

[rodt16s]

Whereabouts in the UK are you ped..?

 

[ped]

I'm in York now, just moved from Oxford. It's nice up here!

 

[jcb4718]

I have used the OM 200mm f4 and the 180mm f2.8. If you look for it, the 180mm has more purple fringing and its a deeper purple, too. But in 'real' photos I never noticed it much. In the end I kept the 200mm lens simply because much more handy (smaller and lighter). I always use it with a fast film. All these longer lenses definitely need to be used with a faster shutter speed (1/250 or faster), even with a tripod...and I would not put on a tripod a camera with a 180mm fitted. It's too heavy and doesn't have a collar (unlike the OM 300mm f4.5)

 

[lynnb]

I had the Zuiko 200/4 and liked it a lot. This was taken wide open on Kodachrome 25.

 

[Keith]

Love that ^ pic! 🙂

 

[rodt16s]

I'm in York now, just moved from Oxford. It's nice up here!

Oh well never mind, I'm in Swindon, otherwise you could of tried mine.. even given a 250/2 a try out

 

[ped]

Oh well never mind, I'm in Swindon, otherwise you could of tried mine.. even given a 250/2 a try out

Thanks for the kind offer

 

[TXForester]

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.

Thanks for the information. Mine is the earliest, Kiron, version.

 

[dtcls100]

Originally Posted by kuzano
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.

Actually, that is not quite right. The best 3 versions of the Series 1 70-210 were the first three versions that were manufactured by Kiron (v1), Tokina (v2) and Komine (v3). Cosina made one of the later versions that supposedly was not nearly as good.

I have the Kiron and Komine versions. The Komine is lighter, smoother, handles better, and easier to focus, but I personally think the image quality is about the same between the two versions, even though lens tests I have seen indicate that the Komine is clearly superior. Mechanically, the Komine I have is pretty much the smoothest zoom I have ever handled, with silky smooth focusing and zooming with no lens creep whatsoever. However, the Tamron SP 80-200 f2.8 is definitely sharper.

BTW, the Kiron version frequently has zoom creep. One can easily fix that by rolling back the focusing ring's rubber and tightening the screws underneath a bit. I fixed mine that way and now it does not creep at all even when pointing straight up or down. The zoom action is acceptably smooth, but not in the same class as the Komine which zooms like butter, but doesn't creep at all.

 

[ferider]

I really like the 180/2.8. Not just for picture quality, but also because it is relatively small and easy to hand-hold.

(on Reala 100)

That being said, if you really want small and sharp, the 200/5 is great.

Roland.

 

[farlymac]

I really like the 180/2.8. Not just for picture quality, but also because it is relatively small and easy to hand-hold.

(on Reala 100)

That being said, if you really want small and sharp, the 200/5 is great.

Roland.

Aaagh! GAS attack!

PF

Okay, I'm over it. Just looked at the checking account.

 

[wblynch]

I may be one of few but I still love the Zuiko 75-150/4.0

 

[Richard G]

I have the 200/4. It is good and not too heavy. The 100 2.8 would be the next Zuiko I'd get, but I think my brother might have one he's not using.

 

[f16sunshine]

I have the 200/4. It is good and not too heavy. The 100 2.8 would be the next Zuiko I'd get, but I think my brother might have one he's not using.

Yes!
The 100 f2.8 is my favorite zuiko.
Sharp, nice oof area, tiny compared to most 100's 🙂

 

[CliveC]

I may be one of few but I still love the Zuiko 75-150/4.0

I've been meaning to try one. I keep hearing how Zuiko zooms aren't really worth getting though.

 

[trip-xa]

On the third party note, I have the Vivitar 135/2.8 and really like it. There is a close focus version, which I don't have that is also supposed to be nice.

Here on digitial:

A Dancer in the Light by Fogel's Focus, on Flickr

and with film:

Pressure by Fogel's Focus, on Flickr

 

[wblynch]

I've been meaning to try one. I keep hearing how Zuiko zooms aren't really worth getting though.

More's the pity. Try one. They're cheap, small, handy and great.

Pull out that lens hood in the daytime. Makes a huge difference.

 

[Cesium]

I agree that the 100mm f/2.8 is a great longer lens and very small, which adds a lot of value to it IMO.

Here's a shot with the 100 f/2.8

Does anyone have experience with the 300mm f/4.5? That's one that I keep looking at, but can never pull the trigger. I probably wouldn't have much use for it.

 

[dtcls100]

I have a later multicoated Zuiko 300 f4.5 in near mint condition. On a tripod it can take quite sharp pics with very good color and very good bokeh and with pretty well controlled fringing. It is a good lens for portraits at a distance and tele landscapes, is compact for its focal length, is hand holdable and has an excellent built in hood. However, it really is not well suited for sports or wildlife that moves around a good deal. This is because the focusing ring action, while quite smooth, is very heavy. I spoke with John Hermanson of Camtech about this and he said this is typical of this lens, given the absence of internal focusing and the weight of the elements being moved around, so the heavy focusing action cannot be corrected.

For a 300, the Tamron SP adaptall 300 f2.8 (latest 360b model) is crackling sharp on a tripod and has excellent color, very little fringing (due to ED glass) and wonderfully light internal focusing so you can focus with one finger. The brightness and ease of focusing also is outstanding. It is a big lens though, so hand holding it is not feasible. It takes rear filters, but also is threaded to take a 112 mm filter to protect the front element. All in all, I typically use the Tamron SP over the Zuiko 300.

 

[Cesium]

Thanks for the reply. Interesting to hear about the focusing action of the zuiko 300mm; I never knew that.