Jerevan
Recycled User
I guess the Zuiko zooms do not get the oohs and aahs as the primes do. I understand this segment is not for the grain-peepers or the available darkness crowd, but is there anything interesting to keep an eye out for?
sleepyhead
Well-known
I use an OM 28-48 f/4 zoom and I've been very surprised at the quality of the images it produces. It's the only OM zoom I've used.
I think of it as my cheap (paid 30 quid) "tri-Elmar"!
Besides the image quality, I really like it's small size and weight, it's constant aperture, and it's flare-resistance.
I think of it as my cheap (paid 30 quid) "tri-Elmar"!
Besides the image quality, I really like it's small size and weight, it's constant aperture, and it's flare-resistance.
AFenvy
Established
I had the Zuiko 75-150mm f4 zoom for a little while. It took nice pictures, I never had any complaints. But I suck at using Zooms and f4 is just too slow for the conditions I shoot in, so I sold it.
Liquid-Sky
Unregistered consumer
Not much a zoom guy, i had the 28/48 f4, very handy little zoom for traveling and the 35/70 f3.6 also very good but slight bigger, mine was in pretty bad condition.
nighstar
eternal beginner
i've never owned a Zuiko zoom, but i just bought and received an OM mount Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f2.8-3.5 Macro. i used it for the first time today at the local botanic gardens and i found it amazingly convenient. despite it's large size and weight, i was very glad to have it with me rather than a prime as i found no shortage of opportunities to use it at all focal lengths. i haven't gotten the photos developed yet, but i'm super excited as i have no doubt that the image quality will be great. 
i think the only reason why zooms aren't more popular is because supposedly (i have no experience with this) zooms tend to be less sharp compared to primes, but i really think that that is a broad generalization that can't be said about every zoom.
i think the only reason why zooms aren't more popular is because supposedly (i have no experience with this) zooms tend to be less sharp compared to primes, but i really think that that is a broad generalization that can't be said about every zoom.
Jerevan
Recycled User
The 28-48 seems intriguing but the prices I have found yet (ranging from 130 up to 300 euros) does inspire a certain caution. I'll see if I can round up something a little less expensive in the future.
dtcls100
Well-known
The Zuiko zoom to get is the 35-80 f2.8. Perhaps the last OM Zuiko lens that was designed, it is probably the sharpest medium range zoom made by anyone at the time and maybe even now. Outstanding sharpness, color rendition, excellent bokeh and a bright, constant f2.8 aperture. I recall Popular Photography reviewed this lens and found it to be the best performing zoom they had tested in its general zoom range. The bayonet lens hood also is great. One of my most used OM Zuikos (I have 17 of them). The image quality is every bit as good as excellent primes in its zoom range.
Of course, the lens has some downsides. First the price -- today goes for over $1,000 typically for a good condition sample. Second, the lens is larger and heavier than the typical OM Zuiko. Third, despite being very well built, when the lens is full extended and shaken, there is a slight amount of play that can be felt in the front of the lens. I understand that this is normal for this lens (as confirmed by John Hermanson of Camtech and other things I have read) and does not affect image quality at all.
In this general range, I also have a Vivitar Series 1 28-90 and Tamron SP 35-80. They are also excellent and provide sharp images. However, in comparing them by image quality, the Zuiko 35-80 is the best, followed by the Tamron SP 35-80 and then the Series 1 28-90. The Tamron SP does focus the closest though and has outstanding closeup image quality and is the most compact and by far the lightest. Given that the latter two lenses cost a mere fraction of the cost of the Zuiko, I do use them quite a bit where they might be exposed to some less than ideal conditions.
Of course, the lens has some downsides. First the price -- today goes for over $1,000 typically for a good condition sample. Second, the lens is larger and heavier than the typical OM Zuiko. Third, despite being very well built, when the lens is full extended and shaken, there is a slight amount of play that can be felt in the front of the lens. I understand that this is normal for this lens (as confirmed by John Hermanson of Camtech and other things I have read) and does not affect image quality at all.
In this general range, I also have a Vivitar Series 1 28-90 and Tamron SP 35-80. They are also excellent and provide sharp images. However, in comparing them by image quality, the Zuiko 35-80 is the best, followed by the Tamron SP 35-80 and then the Series 1 28-90. The Tamron SP does focus the closest though and has outstanding closeup image quality and is the most compact and by far the lightest. Given that the latter two lenses cost a mere fraction of the cost of the Zuiko, I do use them quite a bit where they might be exposed to some less than ideal conditions.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
The 65-200/4 is quite good, I've found. Likewise the 35-70/3.5-4.5 -- there are several 35-70s. I came across another zoom I'd never heard of, the 100-200/5. Not a particularly useful range, but it produces very nice images.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
35-70mm 1:3.6
Optically speaking, the best zoom I've ever used.
The weight and build quality reflects it too.
Optically speaking, the best zoom I've ever used.
The weight and build quality reflects it too.
gliderbee
Well-known
I still like the Zuiko 35-105mm. Ideal walk-around zoom with macro-possibility. Cheap too, since nobody seems to notice it.
Stefan.
Stefan.
Jerevan
Recycled User
The 65-200 looks like it is quite big, in comparision with the camera body. Interesting focal length for a zoom too. The 100-200 is a bit odd, but I guess as a companion to a prime, like a 50, it might do well if it isn't too big.
wblynch
Well-known
I think the zooms are less popular because of the typically slow apertures.
I have always liked the 75-150/4.0 I like it's constant focus, meaning as you change the zoom range it maintains focus. Very handy for sequential shots at different lengths. You can get them cheap because the internets don't like them. The 75-150 will give you great photos. Just always use the built-in lens hood when in daylight.
The 35-105 is very well made and gives great photos but it is much different from traditional Zuiko zooms. That's because it is actually made by Tokina. You can get either the Zuiko or Tokina for great prices. I have this one but seldom use it because of the size and the push/pull zoom.
The 35-70/3.5-4.5 is small and convenient. It is also very sharp with good contrast. Not much bigger than a 50/1.4.
I have always liked the 75-150/4.0 I like it's constant focus, meaning as you change the zoom range it maintains focus. Very handy for sequential shots at different lengths. You can get them cheap because the internets don't like them. The 75-150 will give you great photos. Just always use the built-in lens hood when in daylight.
The 35-105 is very well made and gives great photos but it is much different from traditional Zuiko zooms. That's because it is actually made by Tokina. You can get either the Zuiko or Tokina for great prices. I have this one but seldom use it because of the size and the push/pull zoom.
The 35-70/3.5-4.5 is small and convenient. It is also very sharp with good contrast. Not much bigger than a 50/1.4.
al1966
Feed Your Head
I have the 75-150 it looks not bad but I have not yet printed any shots from it. It feels like a quality lens and I quite like it to use. It cost very little, a lot of which may be to do with a lot of people wanting a 70-200 or longer range zooms.
ferider
Veteran
I've used OM Zuikos 75-150 and 80-250, and they are both very good. A bit on the slow side though; nowadays, I use Tokina ATX 80-200/2.8 and 100-300/4, instead. Cool lenses and built like tanks.
Roland.
Roland.
Lflex
Lflex
Used 2 of the "normal" zooms - those spanning from slightly wide to almost tele (sorry - don’t remember which - it is more than 15 years ago). They were used together with an awful OM2 Program body. The whole package was definitely not abused but was constantly in for repair Loose this, bad connection that... I was (and am) charmed by the compactness and clean design of the early OMs bodies and primes but this experience scared me away from the OM products all together – maybe unfairly.
Anyway: Although the zoom quality left me unimpressed, they did sufficiently well for publication quality slides. One of my photographs of the period made it into a double spread in Library of Congress membership magazine and paid out quite a bit of money.
Anyway: Although the zoom quality left me unimpressed, they did sufficiently well for publication quality slides. One of my photographs of the period made it into a double spread in Library of Congress membership magazine and paid out quite a bit of money.
maitani
Well-known
the 35-80 2.8 is magic, it's the best zoomlens i've ever touched, puts most of my primelenses to shame.