O.T. - om lens ebay win

It's OK, Tom. I'm addicted, so I can't really blame you, you enabler. ;) I'll let Bill know his effect lingers on ... He's a great guy. He sent me a 100/2.8 free as it was surplus to him and had a bent filter ring. Still works fine for me and is supplemental to my original silvernose 100 which needs a good CLA.
 
Good question!

The two are very similar; basically the same design as I understand it. I had the 100/2.8 and eventually picked up an 85/2 and kept that; I like the extra stop and I didn't really miss the extra length. The look is very similar though.

The 100/2.8 is more often to be had at bargain prices.

As to which version - that's more complicated; people generally look for late multicoated versions, but there are some who much prefer certain earlier types; particularly the 100/2.8.

Not a very helpful answer, I guess! They're all good though.

Tom
 
So they're called "Fangs", eh? My best Oly Fangs include my 28-48, which cost me £36 - approx $65 (I bought it in a kit and that was the balance after I'd sold off the rest). I also got a 100/2.8 and an OM2n for £60 (~$110) for the two (again after buying a whole kit and selling off the rest) - the 100/2.8 is a superb lens. And last week I got a 75-150 for £23 (~$42), when they usually seem to go for more than £30 in the UK.

Buying whole kits and selling on the stuff I don't want - unless it's junk - seems to me to be the best way to get bargains (I got my FED 3 and J-9 effectively free that way), but the downside is the temptation to keep more stuff than I intend.
 
The two are very similar; basically the same design as I understand it. I had the 100/2.8 and eventually picked up an 85/2 and kept that; I like the extra stop and I didn't really miss the extra length. The look is very similar though
Click to expand...
Generally I think around 75 to 85 is my favourite telephoto length, but I really do like my 100/2.8. I don't have the 85/2, but it's been on my shopping list for a long time - they always go for too high a price for me. But if the design and look are essentially the same as the 100, I might just have to raise my price limit.

As to which version - that's more complicated; people generally look for late multicoated versions, but there are some who much prefer certain earlier types; particularly the 100/2.8
Click to expand...
All of my Oly lenses are later multicoated ones, bar one - I have a single coated 50/1.4 silvernose, which is really nice for b&w. In an ideal world (or at least, with an ideal bank account), I think I'd have a set of multicoated lenses for colour and a set of silvernose lenses for b&w.
 
If I had the funds the 90 would be my choice ... has a close focus range (it's called "macro" but isn't truly macro), but yeah, in the real world 100/2.8. I like having one older one (silver nose) and one newer one.

Right ... with an ideal bank account to start with; after assembling to lens kits it would no longer be ideal! But then what about the "middle range"? I.e., start with earliest silver noses and a stable of latest MCs, but there were some intermediate models that might be interesting ... OMG (OMGas)
 
Last edited:
A couple of people have mentioned the 200/4, but I've got at least half an eye open for a 200/5. I'd want it mainly for traveling to bright sunny places, so the small size and weight would win over the wider aperture. If anyone has one, I'd be interested to know what it's like.
 
oscroft said:
A couple of people have mentioned the 200/4, but I've got at least half an eye open for a 200/5. I'd want it mainly for traveling to bright sunny places, so the small size and weight would win over the wider aperture. If anyone has one, I'd be interested to know what it's like.
Click to expand...

Can't help with that one, I'm afraid... I do have a 100-200/5 zoom you can try though if you like :)
 
Alan

The 200mmf5 is smaller and lighter, but just as difficult to hold steady, it seems to be as good as the 135mm2.8 apart from magnification.

I use a very deep felt lined hood.

What did you want to know?

Noel
 
Last edited:
Joe et al

The (early) OM2 I had was easy on batteries as it would auto expose if faster than 1/30 even when switched off, the OTF meter did not need the power switch to be on.

Dont know they all do that.

Noel
 
Jon Claremont said:
The 28-48 is my favorite OM lens. I use it far more than the 50 or the 135.
Click to expand...


tell me more, got any pics from it?

that's my latest win on ebay and i'm looking forward to it.

joe
 
Can't help with that one, I'm afraid... I do have a 100-200/5 zoom you can try though if you like
Click to expand...
That's a very kind offer, thanks, but I've already decided it's not the one for me because it's a little bit too big and heavy (and I already have a 75-150).
 
The 200mmf5 is smaller and lighter, but just as difficult to hold steady, it seems to be as good as the 135mm2.8 apart from magnification.
I use a very deep felt lined hood.
What did you want to know?
Click to expand...
That's pretty much it, thanks. I was wondering how it handles and how it compares optically to the other teles - if it's as good as the 135/2.8 then I'd be very happy with one.
 
oscroft said:
All of my Oly lenses are later multicoated ones, bar one - I have a single coated 50/1.4 silvernose, which is really nice for b&w. In an ideal world (or at least, with an ideal bank account), I think I'd have a set of multicoated lenses for colour and a set of silvernose lenses for b&w.
Click to expand...

What is it about the silvernose lenses that you like better for black and white? I have a silvernose 50/1.8 that came attached to my first (inoperative -- stuck shutter) OM-1. Together the two were $25. At the same camera show I got an OM-G (OM-20) in perfect condition attached to a Vivitar 28-210mm macro zoom for $10.
 
Here's a full-frame shot I took with the 100/2.8 on an OM2n a couple of weeks ago. It's on Delta 400 and developed in Rodinal 1+25, so it's not a good test of sharpness, but it gives some idea of its perspective and flare resistance (the sun was only a little out of the frame).
 

Attachments

  • B111_024_3200a.jpg
    B111_024_3200a.jpg
    184.5 KB · Views: 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom