Which Olympus OM lenses to buy?

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I recently got back into film photography after many years of working with digital. I bought an OLympus OM-4Ti which came with a 50 1.8 lens. I just got back the first couple of rolls and I am very impressed with the results in terms of sharpness and contrast. I would like to expand my lens collection and specifically would like to get a wide angle (21, 24, or 28mm). My question is which lenses are recommended? Which are the sharpest OM lenses? Also, where can I get these lenses? I am currently living in London and aside from a couple of places, they seem hard to find.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Jmbern1</p>

<p>Ebay. Otherwise try over the pond here in America. B&H, Adorama and KEH are all have great web presence and will ship overseas.<br />For lenses, depends on what you are looking for. For a combo of price and performance I'd pick a Zuiko 24mm f/2.8 on the wide end ($120-200). The 28/2.8 is supposed to be pretty good and fairly cheap ($70-110), the 28/3.5 is also supposed to be fairly good ($40-60) and the 28/2 is supposed to be phenomenal, but expensive ($300-450).<br />The 24mm f/2 isn't supposed to be any better then the 24/2.8, though it does have a close range correction mechanism in it (floating elements) so it might be a bit sharper focused really close and it is a stop faster, but at about twice the price tag.<br />The 21mm f/3.5 is also supposed to be very good, but expensive ($300-500) and the 21/2 is wonderful, but painfully expensive ($900-1000).<br />I'd also look for a later model Zuiko 85mm f/2. It is labled either Zuiko or MC Zuiko on the front (specifically look for a serial number over 200,000 for the final version that just says Zuiko on the front). Anything with a number, IE F. Zuiko is the earlier version which doesn't appear nearly as sharp as the later versions of the lens.<br />The Zuiko 135mm f/3.5 is also a pretty good and very inexpensive short telephoto lens.</p>

<p>Oh, and much overlooked, but the Zuiko 35mm f/2.8 is also a pretty good and very cheap lens.</p>

<p>All of the Zuiko wide-angle lenses are sharp and contrasty. My personal favorites are the 21mm f2, 24mm f2.8 and 35mm f2. The 21 is a bit pricey and difficult to locate but well worth it if you are into low light photography. It has close focus correction which helps in such situations where required. The 24 is lovely and compact with results equally as good as the 21. It is also fairly easy to locate secondhand and relativey inexpensive. The 35 f2 seems to receive mixed opinions. Many people find it not as sharp as other Zuiko's. Wide open, I tend to agree. When stopped down however, I find it as good as my other wide angles. At the moment, the 35 is my favorite wide Zuiko. This lens is quite easy to get hold of and is similar in size to the 21 f2. It is worth remembering that the faster (f2) Zuiko's use 55mm filters, with the exception of the 18 (uses a 72mm step up ring) and the 28 and 40, which share a 49mm filter like the slower (2.8, 3.5) lens variants.</p>

<p>If you get into Zuiko telephotos, I wholly recommend the 100 and 135 f2.8's. The 100 is tiny and uses 49mm filters. The 135 is not much bigger but uses 55mm filters. Both are very sharp, but results from the 135 seems to have a lovely 3D quality about them, especially where slide film is used.</p>

<p>I quite like the 180mm f2.8 too. It does suffer from Chromatic Abberation in high contrast scenes, especially when used wide open. Stopping down helps but avoiding such situations will produce stunning results. The lens is big (by Zuiko standards) but handles well on OM bodies. Beyond this, things tend to get a bit big. My experience is limited to just the 300 4.5, which is good but hefty, and the 500 f8, which I did not particularly like due to the 'flat' results it produced.</p>

<p>Like all older used lenses, look for good condition examples that do not have external dings. This could cause misalignment of the elements, which in turn reduces image quality. Check also that there is no oil on the aperture blades and they focus smoothly.</p>

<p>Zuiko's, specifically those made for the OM System, are amongst my favorite lenses. The engineering and results are sublime. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Both Matthew and Steve have covered most of the angles (sorry, no pun intende..oh -whatever!) when it comes to OM lenses on a budget or the more expensive / faster lenses, and I can vouch for the following:<br>

28mm f/3.5 - an absolute steal at around $50<br>

85mm f/2 - again, another great bargain and a wicked portrait lens<br>

135mm f/3.5 - cheap, plentiful and sharp as anything else when stopped down a bit</p>

<p>I am surprised to see the f/1.2 lenses omitted however. I have had the luck to own both a 50mm f/1.2 and the older 55mm f/1.2 and have can say without doubt these are fantastic lenses - though at a price - ~$400+ in good condition. The 55mm is the softer of the two but has a much more natural/warm colour tone - whereas the 50mm is more clinical and exact. The 55mm is a bit bigger and heftier as well, whereas the 50 uses a standard 49mm filter ring. </p>

<p>Both are fantastic lenses and allow you to get into extreme depth-of-field territory - or when stopped down, produce beautiful, sharp images.</p>

<p> I still have over a dozen Zuikos. Johnathan, it would be helpful if we knew what kind of things you photograph. If I had to start over with OMs, knowing what I know now, I'd go with the 24/2.8, 35/2.8 and the 85/2.</p>

From my experiences using Zuikos for 30 years, I have many of the same opinions as Matthew and Steve. The 24s and 28s are very good. I have not used a 21. The 35/2 does seem to have mixed opinions. I'm waiting for mine to come back from repair. The 40/2 is a cult favorite and rare and expensive, but not the sharpest Zuiko. The 50/1.8 that you have is a very good lens and sells for prices from free to $25 due to there being a zillion of them out there. 50/1.4 is very good and is faster. 50 and 55/1.2 are very fast but quite expensive. I'd heartily second the advice to get an 85/2. That is one fine portrait lens that will blow you away. Some say the 100 is equally good. The 180/2.8 is a good performer and not utrageously priced. A very affordable tele is the 300/4.5. I also stay away from the 500 for the same reason as Steve. A very good affordable 'every day' zoom is the 35-70 f 3.5-4.5 its only a tiny bit larger than your 50/1.8. I see the 75-150 and the 200/4 as only "average" performance, good but not stellar.

 

Bear in mind that you should buy from 'reputable' sellers, which means be very careful on ebay. I'd buy from a private person or store that offers a return privilege, and not anything from ebay described as "as is" or "I don't know much about lenses" or "working fine that last time I used it" ( Just when WAS that last time, 1981 ? ! ) Also understand that some lenses can now be 25, 30 years old and may suffer from sample variation depending on what part of the world it was from and how it was stored. Humidity,or was it in a leather case for 20 years, (both bad for lenses) etc. Some lenses that work fine or not so fine can still benefit greatly from a professional cleaning which goes for $75 and up. Don't worry over haze or dust but worry a lot about fungus and scratches on a used lens.

<p>The short answer: all of them. It starts with the 50/1.8, then just snowballs from there. Believe me, I know.</p>

BTW- Anyone want to part with a 24/2.8? I'm looking....

<p>I don't have a 24, but I have a 3.5/21 if that would do instead.</p>

<p>Jonathan before you get any more lenses first get the <strong>Olympus F280 FP (High Speed Synch) Flash!</strong> The Olympus OM4Ti you now have is one of the finest 35mm SLR film cameras ever made. Do you realize you have one of only 3 Olympus OM cameras ever made that will work with the Olympus F280 FP FLash? Olympus pioneered the technology behind the F280 as it was the first flash ever made to achieve high-speed flash sync at 1/2000 second. I have the Olympus OM-3 camera myself and although a fine camera it only syncs at a "slow as molasses" maximum of 1/60 second for flash.</p>

<p>As for ultra-wide angle lenses another vote for the Olympus OM 21mm f3.5 UWA lens. I have owned both the silver nosed SC (single coated) version and the later black MC (mult-coated) version. Get the latest OM 21/3.5 MC black nose version as this will help reduce lens flare. Get the<strong> Full-Synchro Flash Wide Adapter for the F280 and you will cover the 21mm ultra-wide angle lens!</strong></p>

<p>I also like the 21mm, but wonder if it takes a little getting used to. I came from using a 24mm as my favourite lens (well, that and a 50mm). It took me a little while to 'see' with it but now after that the extra width of the 21 is nice from time to time.</p>

<p>I prefer the 3.5 because it is cheaper and in reality I believe that the extra stop will not make much difference. For every circumstance I can think of where "one more stop" would make the difference I can think of ten where I'd need another 3 stops.</p>

<p>Rob, I asked a question on the forum a while back.... Who here actually uses the F280? Everyone talks about it like it's the best thing in the world, but at the end of the day it's a pretty weak flash in super-fp mode, and what photos could you take that you couldn't take with a standard TTL or dedicated flash unit?</p>

<p>I use it from time to time. Yes, it is a bit weak but have had sucess with 'head and shoulders' type shots and a 50mm lens. I have found it more useful off camera, via the F0.6m lead, for macro work.</p>

<p>If you want a good telephoto zoom on a budget, don't forget the Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/3.5 - look for the Komine, Kiron or Tokina-made versions (in that order) as there were five manufacturers of varying quality. I don't remember the serial numbers you need to look for, but I'm sure a quick search on Google will help you.</p>

<p>Make no mistake, even though they aren't Zuikos, these are some of the finest telephoto zoom lenses ever made for the OM system.</p>

<p>Sorry George, you're going to have to pry my 24/2.8 from my cold dead hands if you want it. One lens I will never, ever part with (that and the 85/2 are my Zuiko love affairs).<br>

Jonathan is right, the Vivitar series 1 70-210mm f/3.5 Tokina or Kiron versions are extremely good. Tokina and Kiron where the only manufacturers of the 70-210/3.5. There is also a 70-210/2.8-4 that was made by a couple of different manufacturers. One of those versions is supposed to be excellent, the other one not so good.<br>

Really my Zuiko bug bit hard after I got an 85/2. I started with a 50/1.8 and vivitar 135/3.5 as hand-me-downs from my Dad's college days when I was in college. Its slowly snowballed in a big collection, though not as many Zuikos as I'd like. I currently have a 24/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.8 (several), 50/1.4, 85/2 and 135/3.5 along with a slew of 3rd party lenses. Still looking to get a 35/2, 100/2.8, 35-70/3.5-4.5 and 28/2.8 among others, though those will probably be the next few Zuikos I buy.</p>

<p>It's hard to go wrong, although some are less preferred and lesser performers. It is hard to go past the f2 series though if money (and if the bigger size and weight aren't an issue compared to slower equivalents).<br>

That said the 35 f2 isn't that highly rated (it is fine though) and the exceptional 50 f2 and 90 f2 lenses are macro. I really like my old, now battered 90 f2, but it is BIG compared to the small jewel of the 85 f2.<br>

Again, a stop or so more speed isn't so relevant for wide angle lenses, so a 21 f3.5, 24 or 28 f2.8 are fine. The 28 f2.8 is very small and nice and is a good travel alternative, but I like a 24 a bit better.<br>

I like the unheralded 200 f4 as a travel lens too, as it is light, but has reach. And the 300 f4.5 is very nice and solid.<br>

There are zooms if you like that sort of thing too and plenty of exotica - a 350 f2.8 anyone? Or maybe a 20mm micro?</p>

 

<p>Thanks everybody for the responses. I think I am going to get a 28 f2 and go from there. Getting back into film photography has been really great. And I have been pleased about the results I have gotten from the Olympus camera so far. I know people always talk about the "look of film" and while I was doing digital I questioned this. However now I am definitely a film convert. There is something special about these files - the 3D look I am getting is fantastic. Not sure this is simply a film thing, or if the Olympus lenses are doing it. In any case, I'm really enjoying it, and can't wait to keep using the camera!<br>

Cheers,<br>

Jonathan</p>

<p>Hey Jonathan. The 3D look that you see could be the result of more depth of field control that you get with the film lenses on a film body. On the digital camera, one result is greater depth of field, which is not what you want if you want the subject to be separated from the background.</p><p>I too enjoy the look and the results from film. The only problem I have is that reliable, quality processing is getting harder to find. Once you do find a reliable lab or minilab, stick with them and/or just have the film processed and scan the negatives yourself.</p><p> </p>

<p>You will never ve sorry with the 28/2. Never!<br>

I have it and the 21/2 and both are as good as you can get, but I got mine before all the Canonistas found it for their FF digitals, so the price hadn't shot up.<br>

Another to consider is the little 28048 zoom, mine is sharp and contrasty.</p>

<p>Bill pearce</p>

<p>LOL! Bill, I am one of those Canonistas that uses OM Zuikos on FF Digital! : )</p>

<p>You might also consider the 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5. I got one for my "new" OM-1n not too long ago and find it to be superb.</p>