OM, I've become a Zuikoholic!

The only glass I've ever had that developed fungus were a pair of 10x50 Celestron binoculars. Flowers of it all over the inside of the front elements. But those binoculars lived at my friend's seaside apartment, and would be unused for months at a time.

I've got 4 Zuikos all of which have no fungus.
 
chippy said:
i come across more than i can count Chris, disappointedly, although lens i too have owned since new are good

perhaps you have looked after yours well, as you say you or your father purchased from new..but even on your small sample its 7.5% that did have fungus!
Click to expand...

I've seen more fungus on my non Zuiko lenses (Nikkors and Taks and Canon RF glass and the like). I guess that means that Nikkors and Takumars and Canon lenses are all more prone to fungus than Zuikos. 🙄

Anyway, back to my original point, the Zeiss 85/1.4 is over $1200 new, $600 used. A BGN grade OMZ 85/2 is only $189 at KEH right now. That means user condition, but glass is GOOD (no fungus).

Zuikos are great performers and still pretty cheap. Even the more exotic glass is comparable to other lenses of similar make and vintage. Sorry if they are out of your price range or have become more expensive, but that doesn't make them "not a great lens" or "prone to fungus" any more than old Canon or Nikon or Pentax glass. Just because a lens is now more expensive does not change its inherent properties, (though it might change the desireability of that lens).

But if you're that worried about them being expensive, you should check out the 28/3.5, the 50/1.8, and the 135/2.8. Those three lenses are dirt cheap, yet perform at a very high level, even by "today's standards." Those three together can be found for right at $100.

The one glaring exception that I will agree with you on is the 40/2. Prices for that lens have gotten out of hand.
 
There are many reasons to own an Olympus OM body and Zuiko lenses, and a main one is small size and weight while still retaining desired features. I'm sure if you compare size/weight and price of an OM body with Zuiko lens with a Contax body with that Zeiss 85/1.4 the difference in price and weight between the two systems would be large.
 
I've never heard of Zuikos being prone to fungus and so far, out of five lenses, 100% have been fungus free. I'm sure fungus happens to any lens that isn't treated right, but find it hard to believe that Zuikos are more prone to it than others. That must have been an aberration.

When I decided to go 100% film, my intentions were to stick with Pentax since I already had several lenses, started with a K1000, then went to digital with the K10D for a couple of years and then the K20D briefly. I was leaning heavily towards an LX and still think they are great cameras. I love Pentax, but I got much more for my money with Olympus, and without sacrificing any quality.

Also, there's just something about the OM's that really appeals to me. After all, the OM1 was truly revolutionary when it debuted, and though I also have an OM2, I find myself using the OM1 most of the time when I know which lens I'll be using the most. I still like the two camera/ two lens approach, so I do use them both.

Anyway, you just have to use what works for you whatever it is. I know not all my decisions are rational ones. Sometimes they are aesthetic, sometimes emotional, sometimes whatever. Often the rationalizing comes afterwards to justify my decisions! However I decided, I'm happy with my OM's and my Zuikos. I'd also be real happy with Pentax gear and Zeiss, especially if anyone wants to make a large donation! 😀
 
I don't know if they are necessarily "prone", but the only Zuiko lens that I own (a 50/1.8) did have some fungus on one of the inside elements. I was able to clean it up nicely with a dab of cold-cream. Now it works like a charm. Maybe it was just due to my humid environment.
 
chippy said:
heres a nice 85/2, for a cheap [Gag] price too 120GBP, oops it has been damaged due to fungus!
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120505086944&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:AU:1123
Click to expand...


What does this prove? Shall I post a few dozen links to all the non-fungus OM lenses on ebay? You made your opinion very clear. Your continued anti-Olympus posts in a thread that has praised Olympus for over 400 postings is in bad taste. Start your own "Olympus lenses are fungus infected pieces of sh*t" thread if you like.
 
Last edited:
chippy said:
it didnt take 35 years to show up, Olympus regularly had to deal with this problem in their service departments, they printed in their service manual a procedure for it--using that ponds cold/face cream stuff
Click to expand...

Just because a repair service center has a procedure to deal with fungus proves that that brand of lenses is "prone" to fungus? My auto repair shop has ways of dealing with many types of repairs that I have never needed. Go figure.
 
nikku said:
Apparently so, since Zuikos now command such exorbitant prices. 🙄
Click to expand...


I did have to pay $500.00 for my mint Zuiko 50mm f1.2 and they are damned hard to find.

But in perspective ... considering it's performance, it's peanuts! 😎
 
Keith said:
I did have to pay $500.00 for my mint Zuiko 50mm f1.2 and they are damned hard to find.

But in perspective ... considering it's performance, it's peanuts! 😎
Click to expand...

John Hermanson had one for sale recently for under $400, wish I had the money at the time to get it! It got snapped up pretty quickly.
 
nikku said:
John Hermanson had one for sale recently for under $400, wish I had the money at the time to get it! It got snapped up pretty quickly.
Click to expand...


That would have been pretty good value at that price!

When I got mine from an eBay seller in the US I discovered there was a nice story attached to it. I noticed that it came in it's original box with the original documentation, pouch and hood and seemed virtually new. The seller explained to me that he had indeed bought it new to photograph his newly born daughter back whenever and had last used it to photograph her wedding six months ago. He figured it had done it's job and it was now time to pass it on! 😀

It's an unusual lens ... I call it my SLR Noctilux! :angel:
 
Last edited:
Keith said:
It's an unusual lens ... I call it my SLR Noctilux! :angel:
Click to expand...

Hey Keith,

How about Zuikolux? That has a nice ring to it!

And as for the fungus issue, maybe when I retire I can start a mushroom farm! It's either that or a chinchilla ranch. Guess I'll just have to wait and see how my lenses fare over the next fifteen years or so before I make that decision. 😀
 
I've had some lenses succumb to fungus, both OM system and non, i.e. "3rd party". I admit to formerly having less than immaculate storage habits, and that some early coatings may have been more attractive habitats to mycological life-forms.
 
The only lenses I've had submit to fungus were TLR ... my Rolleicord and Rolleiflex both were stricken. One night I was looking through my 35mm 1.2 Nokton and could have sworn I saw some ... it was a reflection! 😛

I haven't looked at my toes lately though! 😀
 
Here in Japan lens fungus is common, and you'll find it on any make or model of lens. In my experience, Canon lenses seem to get the worst of it (I have a dozen or so Canon FD lenses). I've seen a few Zuiko lenses with fungus as well, but not as many as with Canon. One complaint I have about Zuiko glass it that the coating seems not to be as durable as with other makes, as I find many lenses with cleaning marks on the elements. Take care when cleaning your lenses...
 
Fungus will happen to any lenses. Some seem to be more prone to it like the Nikon 35-70/2.8, I rarely see a copy of that lens without horrible fungus inside of it. I've probably seen 20+ for sale with fungus and oily blades.
 
Hmm, I go away from this thread for a few days, and when I get back I see an argument has broken out about the somewhat surprising claim that Zuiko lenses are unusually prone to fungus!

I've had about 30 Zuiko lenses in recent years, and currently have about 15 of them (with them being so cheap these days, I've bought lots of different ones to try out, and have kept the ones I like best).

And I haven't seen a single example of fungus in any of them.

And my two OM-using friends, who have a fair few Zuiko lenses between them, have never had fungus problems either.

The 85/2? I think I paid about £120 for mine - it's a late model multi-coated one, and arrived in perfect condition. It's one of my favourite ever lenses, and though it's expensive by the standards of the more commonly-available Zuiko lenses, I think it's a stunning bargain. Sure, a Zeiss 85/1.4 is going to be a bit better optically, but I don't need f/1.4, don't want a large and heavy lens, and it's too expensive for my needs (I mainly shoot when traveling, and have just arrived back here in Thailand - with OM gear 🙂 )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom