OM Zooms

[thegman]

Hello,
As a trade for another camera, I now own a OM2n + 28mm, 50mm, and 135mm lenses. For me, this is meant to be an easy to carry 'vacation' camera, something I can just sling round my neck and use. To this end, I was thinking about trading all the primes for one good zoom.

So basically, what's a good solid zoom for OM? Looking to go from 28mm (although 35mm would be OK) to 100mm, although 75mm would be OK).

I don't mind giving up a little image quality, but obviously not too much.

Cheers!

Garry

 

[tumblinglight]

Well, if you don't mind loosing shooting wide open with the 50 and the brighter finder it provides, you are in the search for the Zuiko AUTO-Zoom 35-70 3.6.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/3570mm.htm

I have it, it is supposed to be good, but i lust for the 50 1.4 and a 28.
Never used it much. I favour my rokkors.

 

[thegman]

Well, if you don't mind loosing shooting wide open with the 50 and the brighter finder it provides, you are in the search for the Zuiko AUTO-Zoom 35-70 3.6.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/3570mm.htm

I have it, it is supposed to be good, but i lust for the 50 1.4 and a 28.
Never used it much. I favour my rokkors.

Well, I just tried the 50mm f/1.4 and it does not seem that much brighter than the f/2.8 lenses I have. I expect f/3.6 will be fine for me, especially as I'm likely to use it in very good light anyway.

 

[Chris101]

Personally, I'd be on the lookout for a 35-70 f/3.6. It's also available in f/4 and f/3.5-4.5.

 

[thegman]

Personally, I'd be on the lookout for a 35-70 f/3.6. It's also available in f/4 and f/3.5-4.5.

OK, that's two votes for the 35-70 f/3.6. They seem a little thin on the ground, but is the f/4 versions and the f/3.5 - 4.5 version basically the same lens aside from speed? If so, they are easy and cheap to get.

I'm not interested in collectibility or anything like that.

Cheers

Garry

 

[Ade-oh]

The OM zooms I've tried were definitely of their era - a bit mushy to say the least. I'm told the 28-80/f2.8* which appeared with the OM-3ti was very good but I've never used one so I don't know.

For me the joy of the OMs is that you can take a body and a bunch of prime lenses and it still weighs much the same as a modern DSLR set-up with a zoom.


*or was it a 35-80?

 

[thegman]

The OM zooms I've tried were definitely of their era - a bit mushy to say the least. I'm told the 28-80/f2.8* which appeared with the OM-3ti was very good but I've never used one so I don't know.

For me the joy of the OMs is that you can take a body and a bunch of prime lenses and it still weighs much the same as a modern DSLR set-up with a zoom.


*or was it a 35-80?

It's not so much the weight, more just the hassle of changing lenses on the move. Maybe I'll just live with it, does not need to be a big deal.

Cheers

Garry

 

[rodt16s]

If it's not a weight issue buy another body, they're cheap enough

 

[thegman]

If it's not a weight issue buy another body, they're cheap enough

I already have 4 cameras to take away with me (I'm going on holiday, and also emigrating to Australia), so I'd probably rather not have any more. I'd like to reduce the amount of gear I have, not get more...

 

[rodt16s]

they also did a 28-48 f4 which was quite compact

 

[teddy]

Get the 35-70 f3.6.

Great gentle saturation on colours, sharp wide open at all focal lengths, great bokeh, high resolution, sturdy built and a great hood. Only minor flaw is distortion on the wide end, but this can be corrected. Learn how to use it properly, you won't be disappointed.

OM Zuiko 35-70 3.6 at 35mm

OM Zuiko 35-70 3.6 at 70mm and wide open

 

[Elektrojänis]

I'd stick the 28 on it, take the 50 in the bag (for the occasional need for somethin longer than the 28) and possibly leave the 135 home... But that's just me. I don't find changing lenses to be that much of a trouble, but when I have 28 or 24 on the camera I rarely do change.

A few primes usually weight less than a good zoom and they have the option of opening up a stop or two when the light starts to get's dim.

 

[thegman]

I think I'll look out for a 35-70 f3.6, the results look just fine to me.

 

[Noll]

For what it's worth, 35-70 f3.5-4.5 is also quite good and it has the added benefit of sharing the same 49mm filter size as most other zuiko primes.

Ergonomics aren't that great, but if you don't have to change the aperture constantly that helps

 

[Paul Jenkin]

I used to shoot weddings in the early 80s (using OM1n and OM2n and a range of primes). I was always looking for a killer zoom to avoid having to swap lenses so often. I bought the 35-70mm f3.6 and a 75-150 f4(ish).

The 35-70mm, though a bit slow, was very good. However, for some reason, I never hit it off with the 75-150mm.

Compared to the fast, pro zooms of today, the zooms that were around in the 70s and 80s were a stop or two too slow and a bit soft round the edges - unless you could get to f8 / f11.

Personally, I'd try to stick with the Zuiko primes as they were among the best around at the time. They're also only fractionally larger than Leica equivalents - which makes the OM system incredibly portable and they are also great value for money these days...

 

[Vickko]

I've got the 35-70/3.6 and 35-80/2.8.

The f3.6 is plenty good, and relatively light. A perfectly good lens.

The f2.8 was hard to find, cost a lot, and is heavy. But also a good lens. Keep in mind, it is f2.8, so the optical physics demands a lot of glass. I think it is more of a collector's piece.

So for "real life", go for the f3.6. I got mine for a song.

 

[D.O'K.]

I've found the 35-70/f3.5-4.5 fine at f8 or smaller but at the wider apertures reliably good only for colour enprints up to about 6x8". For critical B+W work or E6 (remember E6?) the primes are much better.

I agree the ergonomics aren't great, particularly the "two-touch" zoom and focus rings, but they're not bad either: and one advantage is that the lens is very compact and light.

Regards,
D.

 

[rodt16s]

Might want to check out a Tokina ATX 35-70 2.8

 

[kuzano]

Tamron... in the day.... Adaptall II mount

Tamron... in the day.... Adaptall II mount

I have a tamron 35-80 f2.8-3.5 in the Adaptall II mount for Olympus. Fast at the short end and sharp as a talk, with close focus (Macro) features... It was always a great lens for me. I've used this lens adapted to 4/3 and m4/3 with great results. The interchangeable Adaptall II adaptor system preserved all features of the original camera body re exposure, manual focus, etc.

I also have a Tamron 35-135 in the Adaptall II mount for Olympus. Another great lens of the day. I've always found the Older Tamrons very good, and by changing the Adaptall mount to desired camera, very versatile.

In fact, I am using my 35-135 Olympus mount Adaptall, with an M-Zuiko OM to m4/3 on my E-PL5 and even without AF, but using Live View focus, find it very sharp.

I used a lot of the Adaptall mounts for SLR's in the 70's and 80's and the Tamron lenses were quite good.they are often found on eBay in excellent condition if you search carefully.

 

[wblynch]

Not mentioned yet is the 35-105 Zuiko zoom.

Not so compact as the 35-70/3.5-4.5, that I use a lot, but still reasonable. Well constructed and you can find them cheap if you keep your eyes open.

The 35-105 is really, really nice and not much talked about.

I am in the minority when I say I like the 75-150/4 a lot.

My other zoom is the Zuiko 100-200 which I have never even used yet.