George S.
How many is enough?
Oh, thanks Chris, I didn't know. For some reason I thought the 1.4 was the fastest 50. I also only thought my memory had gaps in it from the '60s, now I have to worry about the '80s too?! 
nikku
Well-known
DAMN, $150 for that kit is dirt cheap! The 28/2 is my favorite lens, and sells for easily twice that. The 100/2 for $420 is not too shabby either.
TWoK
Well-known
With the yen rate the way it is there aren't too many good deals left in Japan.
pggunn
gregor
Hi JSU,
I think they will! I was heavily invested in a Pentax system but there was something about Olympus that piqued my curiosity as well. After a major career change I began to realize that I could do whatever I wanted as far as photography goes, and gradually gravitated towards the OM's. The OM1 was introduced when I was in high school (go LHS Pioneers!) and one of my friends and fellow staff members on the high school paper was an Olympus fanatic. Now I know why!
I've been very pleased with the switch and think OM gear is under-appreciated at present, in general. In other words, they are quite a bargain now and I expect prices to go up significantly in the next five years. That's just my opinion, and I may be, and frequently am, wrong. So take everything I say with a gram of salt!
As of now, I have an OM1-md and an OM2-md with a 28/2, a 28/2.8, a 50/1.4 and a 100/2.8, and anticipate acquiring at least one more body, maybe a couple more for spares, plus a few more lenses next year. I'm going to bide my time and wait for opportunities and/or bargains as they present themselves, but fully expect both opportunities and bargains to diminish in the years ahead. I suppose that's only common sense when you consider they aren't making them anymore, but that's a hard call in these times when there's such a rapid move towards digital. Or would it be more accurate to describe it as a rapid move from analog, since digital seems to be the norm these days?
I don't really have any answers, but I know what I like, and hope you find what you like too! Good luck and happy shooting!
Greg
nikku
Well-known
Greg, I don't think you're too far off with your prediction--John Hermanson is currently slammed with a backlog of work repairing bodies and lenses, and if flickr is any indication, each day there are an increasing number of OM users.
Personally, I'm going to keep using my OM until they stop producing film.
Chris101
summicronia
Unless you are a radiophobe. The 55mm is said to have a radioactive element.
TWoK
Well-known
Supposedly on the silver nosed version.
reiki_
Well-known
The thing that bothers me the most with my OM-2n is that back door creaks when i press it and its really getting on my nerves.
TWoK
Well-known
My biggest complaint was that there is no AEL. I am far happier with my Nikon lineup than I ever was with my OM's, but I do miss some of the lenses.
nikku
Well-known
there are other cameras with great features, although that were made a few years later, for those that dont know, nikon Fxx's or fm2a, pentax mx or lx, the list is looong and they can get NEW, quality Zeiss 85mm 1.4's for em, faster than any Zuiko for Om in 85mm (dont think they are available for the OM unfortunately) !!! and for less money ta boot than you usually get a fungus prone OM 85/2 in this ridiculous current market gone mad for OM gear, there are also other 3rd party lens equivalents of the modern Zeiss lens for half the price that fit on many of the other cameras (nikon etc) but not the OM, also some other focal lengths---the OM IS good but not that good eh!! (oh did we not mention that to everyone, how dam fungus prone these, although beautifull and ahead of their time the zuiko were in their day
What? The Zeiss goes for over $1000 brand new! The OM market might be picking up, but OM Zuikos are still a huge value, very cheap for the quality. Not to mention they are still smaller and lighter than almost any other SLR lens of similar make and vintage, except for Pentax. But Takumars are almost always more expensive than Zuikos.
There are some 3rd party manufacturers (such as Rokinon) who make an 85/1.4, but it is not half the price of an OMZ 85/2, though it is twice the size and weight. I paid $100 for my OMZ 85/2 plus another $100 to get it CLA'd. Bargain. You can get them in BGN condition from KEH.com right now for under $200 ($50 cheaper than the 85/2 Takumar, $20 cheaper than the 85/2 AIS, $40 cheaper than the 85/1.8 non ai). That is an amazing price for a renowned portrait lens.
It may not be the Zeiss 85/1.4, but I don't want it to be. I don't need it to have critical sharpness. I need it to be small, light, bright, unobtrusive and usable in a dimly lit room. And that's just the 85/2. I can bring that and stuff my 21/3.5 in one pocket and 50/1.8 in the other and I have a travel anywhere kit.
Of course there are other cameras with similar feature sets. The OM spawned a legion of imitations. And some of them are very good cameras. But to approach the quality of the Zuiko lenses, you'll be paying even more with other lens manufacturers, and usually end up with bigger, heavier lenses.
nikku
Well-known
Could be, but the fact remains, that Zeiss lens weighs over a pound! It actually weighs almost exactly the same as an OM-1. Don't get me wrong, it looks like a sweet lens, but it's no Zuiko.
nikku
Well-known
If condition and speed are more important than size and price/performance ratio, then yes, your point is valid. But clearly you don't get why so many people (myself included) love Zuikos. For the price they are amazing perfomers, and because of their size are more in line with the rangefinder style of photography. Small, unobtrusive, quiet.
I haven't bothered with the 90/2 macro for the very reasons you mention: it is heavy, and expensive. I could get a new digital Zuiko 50/2 macro for my Olympus E-series camera for half the price.
I don't think the OM market has gone crazy as you assert. The OM line is still an incredible value in the world of 70's SLR systems.
Is the Zeiss a better lens? Probably, it's certainly faster. Is it $800 better? I doubt it. For the $1000 that a new Zeiss 85/1.4 costs, I could get good condition OM-1n, 24/2.8, 50/1.2, and 85/2, all fungus free, with money left over for film. That's a hell of a setup for $1000.
But really, I'm a Zuikoholic because I think the cameras and lenses are great performers. All of my favorite shots from this year were taken with either my OM or my Oly 35RC.
FrankS
Registered User
i say tomato, you say toma'to.
that om4 sure has advanced metering features, doesn't it?
that om4 sure has advanced metering features, doesn't it?
FrankS
Registered User
the om4 with the wonky viewfinder had to go, so i found another on ebay. i really liked the solid feel of the om4.
Dean Cho
Member
I used to have the same problem on some of my OM's. After I changed the light seals in the film chamber (used Interslice's excellent dense foam seals), the problem completely went away on all of my cameras with this problem. I think much of the creaking is because there is too much play in the fit between the back and the body. Replacing old, worn seals with fresh, dense new foam seals seems to eliminate this excess play and hence the creaking.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I've never heard of Zuikos being prone to fungus. I've only seen one that ever had it, an ancient 50/1.8 silvernose lens that someone gave me that was filled with fungus, so i tossed it out. I have a lot of Zuiko lenses, 15, I think. Never had fungus in any, and some were bought new by me or my father over 25 yrs ago.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
In the late 80's, when the OM-4T was the current model of the OM-4 the Canon T90 also had multi spot metering.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I see an OM-4 in my future!
That metering is hard to resist.
That metering is hard to resist.
FrankS
Registered User
i've read about the om4 metering capabilities, but once i actually held the camera and manipulated the controls, it all felt so good and easy to use.
George S.
How many is enough?
Jeez, chippy, you gotta change either the place you buy your lenses from, or actually look at them before you pay. Some lenses (silvernose) may be 30 or more years old by now. You don't have any control over some circumstances. A previous owner may have stored that lens in a basement 15 years ago. To say the Zuikos are "prone" to fungus is ridiculous. Stop buying them from Florida! To my Floridian friends, I'm (half) joking. My experience is just like Chris's, I've probably owned close to 60 Zuikos through the 35 years I've used the OM system. Yes, I've bought and sold several examples of the same lens when I left Olympus to use another system and then came back, that's why the lens count is so high. I've also owned some for 30 years and have recently made some new purchases. NO fungus in either of the two categories.
I've had exactly one Zuiko that exhibited fungus and I had it cleaned for $60 and it wasn't etched or damaged, it came out of the shop just like brand new. ( Kinda brings the percentage down from 7.5, doesn't it? )
Overall, whatever Zuikos you may feel are overpriced, I have news for you, they were overpriced in 1980, 1990 or 2000 dollars too. I don't see how anything has changed. The 85/2 has a deservedly good reputation as a magnificent portrait lens, so you're going to pay a bit more for one. But to the patient buyer, there are good deals out there on not just that lens, but any other.
I've had exactly one Zuiko that exhibited fungus and I had it cleaned for $60 and it wasn't etched or damaged, it came out of the shop just like brand new. ( Kinda brings the percentage down from 7.5, doesn't it? )
Overall, whatever Zuikos you may feel are overpriced, I have news for you, they were overpriced in 1980, 1990 or 2000 dollars too. I don't see how anything has changed. The 85/2 has a deservedly good reputation as a magnificent portrait lens, so you're going to pay a bit more for one. But to the patient buyer, there are good deals out there on not just that lens, but any other.
Last edited: