Olympus lens suggestions

<p>I can't believe I didn't post this in here before. In the "Classic manual" forum I posted a question about a good lens lenses for travel. I am going to Europe on a 25th anniversary trip in June and taking my OM2 (before you ask..I prefer film) and got some great suggestions. I am taking my MIJ 50/1.8 and I just purchased an 35-70/3.5-4.5. I chose it to give me some flexibility and I liked it's small size. I admit, I am still a bit unsure about the zoom as I have always subscribed to the idea that primes were good and zooms were bad but I'm willing it give it a go. </p>

<p>What I am wondering is how are the 135 3.5s? I am wanting something with a bit more reach but need to go for something in the budget category. I know the 28/3.5 is known to be a very good quality lens and I was wondering what the opinions are about the 135/3.5? </p>

<p>With what you have already, I would add a 24/2.8 instead, and the 135/2.8.</p>

<p>well, the 100/2.8 is a favorite of mine, I think it's a little bit pricier than the 135/3.5 but it's worth it! I have a 135/3.5 but it went into the cupboard and stayed there after I got the 100/2.8.</p>

<p>I was just out using my 100 f2.8 on my OM-10 last week ... I love it. Beautiful lens lovely contrast even at f2.8</p>

<p>I have a 135/3.5 and love it. It is a little soft wide open (very usable though), but not bad at all. Very sharp at f/5.6 and further.<br>

I am with Luis though, if you are going to Europe frankly I'd get a Zuiko 24mm f/2.8 first, and then look at getting a Zuiko 135/3.5. You'll want to be able to go wide, really wide and 24mm should get that for you in most circumstances.<br>

24/2.8 + 35-70/3.5-4.5 + 50/1.8mij +135/3.5 should cover just about everything you'd want to shoot. I'd get a couple of 49mm polarizers (that size is pretty cheap). 1 could do for you, but its nice not to have to swap the filter between lenses a whole bunch if you are shooting a lot.<br>

I think you'll find at 28mm you'll be wanting a wider lens a fair amount. At 24mm I think you'll want wider only a handful of times.<br>

Compared to the price of the trip, $200 for a 24/2.8 (120-180) and a 135/3.5 (20-40) is well worth it.<br>

Personally my 24/2.8 and 50/1.4 get the most use (with the 50/1.4 the most). My 35/2.8, 135/3.5, 85/2 and 50/1.8mij probably get the next most use in approximately in that order.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Compared to the price of the trip, $200 for a 24/2.8 (120-180) and a 135/3.5 (20-40) is well worth it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True enough. I hear tales of the 24/2.8 being quite sharp. I have always been under the impression that 24 would seem a bit too wide for a lot of stuff and that 28 would be more useable. It's good to learn otherwise.</p>

<p>The 24 is a little wide for some things, but it is easy enough to crop 5-10% in to the negative if you really need to, but you can't widen the negative by 5-10% if you can't get wide enough.<br>

Out of my whole line of lenses I have a 14mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm, 70-210mm and 400mm lenses (several of some focal lengths, Ex. I have a 28/1.8 Sigma and a 28/2.5 Tamron lens). If I had to pick a single lens, I'd pick the Zuiko 50mm f/1.4. If I had to pick a 2nd lens I'd pick the Zuiko 24/2.8. If I had to pick a 3rd lens it would be one of the 70-210mm lenses.</p>

<p>That is, if I could only take 1, 2 or 3 lenses with me. Since you have a 35-70/3.5-4.5 a good step wider from that is 24mm. 28mm is wider, but not a whole lot wider.<br>

28mm is only 25% wider then 35mm and 24mm is 45% wider. When I can I try to have lenses in approximately 50% different focal lengths. So 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm. 24-35 is ~45%, 35-50 ~40%, 50-85 70%, 85-135 ~58%. Back packing I typically take just a 24 or 28mm lens, a 50mm lens and a 135mm lens. Though, that said I am trying to pickup a Zuiko 100mm f/2.8 as I find the step from 50 to 135mm is a bit much, at least for backpacking/nature related persuits (from 70mm to 135mm it isn't nearly as much of a jump).</p>

<p>As ever, it depends on what pictures you want to take. The 24mm lens is a superb landscape lens and the 50mm 35-70 combo hold the middle ground. In my view the 85/100mm lenses ideal for portraits because the perspective is pleasing but you are not too far from your subject. The 135mm definitely has 'reach' so you would maybe be taking a photo of something you couldn't get close to. The 135mm f3.5 is really handy and it's light gathering power is not much different from the slightly bigger 135mm f2.8. This is because the f2.8 is only f2.8 rounded to the nearest standard aperture: the difference between the lenses is definitely not a 1/2 stop. The f3.5 also controls chromatic aberrations better, I think because one of the optical components is a doublet. All the lenses you are considering are sharp enough particularly when stopped down. The 135mm f3.5 won't let you down. Good luck on your trip! </p>

<p>You will definitely have more wide angle opportunities than longer lens opportunities if you are in the cities of Europe. A 24mm lens would be quite nice!. I have a 100 f2.8 and a 135 f2.8. The 100 is better for most shooting, but the 135 is nice for stage performances with a bit more reach. If you do go with the 135, you could consider one of the older Vivatars. That is the 135 I have and it is plenty sharp. I used to use it alot for shooting sports like bike races. </p>

<p>Mark - I was thinking that I'd have more need of a WA in Europe. I'd love to pick up a 24/2.8 but post airline ticket finances being what they are I think I'm going to pick up a 28/2.8 from KEH. I thought about the much lived 28/3.5 but I want the extra speed (I live in the Northwest) and I like the fact that the 28/2.8 stops down to f22. I have some time to play with it before the trip. We have a good many spots where I can use a WA in Washington State so I can put it through it's paces.</p>

<p>I think a 135/3.5 or 100/2.8 to round out the kit will come later.</p>

 

<p>I think that is probably the right choice picking the 28/2.8 over the 28/3.5. They are both almost the exact same size and weight and 2/3rds of a stop of extra speed, and being able to stop down an extra stop, doesn't hurt. The price isn't really that much more (the cost of a meal out for 2).<br>

I would deffinitely try to get either a 135/3.5 or 100/2.8 before the trip as well. If price is the issue, go with the 135/3.5 and you won't be sorry. If you can stretch just a bit more, get the 100/2.8 as I think the focal length will work a bit better with the other lenses you have, that and the extra speed doesn't hurt.</p>

<p>There were only a handful of times I wish'd I had a lens longer then 135mm in focal length when I have been in Europe and quite a few times I wish I had something shorter then 135mm. My first trip was to England for 9 days when I first started photography and all I had was a zuiko 50/1.8 and vivitar 135/3.5. Wide angle would have been really, really nice. My second trip was a cruise from Italy to Spain, Morrocco, Maderia, the canaries, Spain and Italy on the return. I had a no name brand 28-85/3.5, zuiko 50/1.8 and vivitar 135/3.5. The 28-85 turned out to vignette horribly on the wide end (anything shot beyond 35mm was pretty much a throw away image, fortunately I shot a lot with the 50mm lens).<br>

At any rate, you are choosing good quality lenses. Just make sure to try them out at least a few weeks before leaving. Even with Zuikos you may find the occasional dud because of abuse or neglect and I'd hate for you to find that out after a wonderful amazing trip.</p>

<p>Not all maximum apertures are what they seem. The maximum aperture on the lens barrel may be f2.8 but if you notice a little line between f2.8 and f4 that's telling you where between f4 and f2.8 the maximum aperture is. From memory I think the 28mm f2.8 has such a line so it's not a true f2.8 lens. The same goes for the 135mm f2.8. So neither of these lenses have actual maximum apertures much greater than their f3.5 versions. I've found the 28mm f3.5 to be a superb lens, quite comparable to the 24mm f2.8 in terms of image quality. It's optimum aperture is f8. I agree though, the minimum aperture is only f16 (vs. f22 for the f2.8 version). On the other hand, the 200mm f4 and the 180mm f2.8 are truly f4 and f2.8 respectively (no line).</p>

<p>Don't know where you heard that, but not something I have ever heard before. Unless I am grossly mistaken manufacturers focal lengths and aperatures need to be correct to within 5% of their stated value. Not sure if that is a gentlemans agreement or something hard and fast.<br />IE the Sigma 70-210mm f/2.8 actually measures at about 71-201mm (just within 5% error on the long end).<br />So a 5% error on aperature means that at most it could be an f/2.94 lens if they stated it was f/2.8.</p>

<p>Many Olympus lenses have that little line you talk about. It shows where the aperature ring comes to rest, not that the true aperature is less then the indicated value. It seems to be something Olympus did with their later lens line up. Look at a later version of the 35/2.8 or 24/2.8, they also have the line on the wide open aperature (not sure about the earlier versions of those lenses, but the early and late version 50/1.4 has the line).</p>

<p>Do tests with with lenses fitted fitted to a camera. You'll find that for all intermediate apertures (e.g. f11, f8, f5.6) one aperture click = 1 stop difference in the meter reading. If there is a 'line' (e.g. the 135mm f2.8) you'll find the click between f4 and f2.8 gives about 1/2 stop difference in the reading. On the other hand, if there is no 'line' (e.g. the 200mm f4) then between f5.6 and f4 there is still 1 stop difference. I think it was a marketing ploy by Olympus (and other manufacturers, too). Once one manufacturer had added the 'line' between e.g. f4 and f2.8 and said it was f2.8 (but remaining silent on the caveat that it was only f2.8 to the nearest standard aperture) then they all had to follow. Measured with a camera meter, there's not much difference (in light gathering power) between corresponding f2.8 and f3.5 lenses in the Olympus line up. I have compared the 28mm f2.8 and f3.5. They are both superb lenses. The differences in optical performance are almost meaningless but the f2.8 does have a click stop at f4 and the f22 setting. With landscape lenses I'm usually around f8 (optimum for both lenses) so I don't find the extra click stops get used. With the 135mm f2.8 and f3.5 lenses it's a different matter. The f3.5 is noticeably better in controlling chromatic aberrations ('colour fringing'). The f3.5 has 5 elements in 4 groups and I think including the achromatic doublet in the construction makes all the difference. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I haven't noticed it with my lenses. Its basically a full stop in meter reading between f/1.4 and f/2 on my 50/1.4. Also a full stop between f/2.8 and f/4 on my 35/2.8.</p>

<p>I did play with it a bit and all my lens (50/1.8, 50/1.4, 35/2.8, 85/2, 24/2.8) have it, the only one that doesn't is the 135/3.5. From testing they all move about half a stop when moving a full click over, except the 50/1.8 which moves about closer to a full stop (still not quite).<br>

That said, other 3rd party lenses, have similar behavior. My sigma 28/1.8 when moved over a click stop (one every half f/stop) is at f/2 (1.8, 2, 2.3, 2.8, 3.2, 4, etc) barely moves the needle at all. Its 1/3rd of a stop, but it moves a lot less then 1/3rd, maybe 1/4 (or less, it moves from dead on to a little less then halfway to the half mark). Looking at the lens mechanically all of the lenses seem to move about the same distance between all stops.<br>

I think it is an issue with more how the OM-1 and/or other OM models are hooked up mechanically than it is an issue with the lenses being that far off from their rated values. After all, it is relying on the mechanical linkage, not the stopped down value like a non-automatic aperature lens would force.</p>

<p>The standard 1 stop aperture sequence is f1.4, f2,f2.8,f4,f5.6...etc. which means that f1.8 is about 1/3 stop greater than f2 i.e. almost the same. Therefore the step f2.8 to f1.8 on a 50mm lens would be about 1 1/3 stops. The final aperture click stop on the 135mm is f5.6 to f3.5 i.e. 1 1/2 stops or thereabout. The final click to full aperture can be anything e.g. greater, equal to or less than 1 stop but for smaller apertures the standard 1 stop sequence is always followed. As I said, only some lenses in the Olympus line up (e.g. the 200mm f4 or the 180mm f2.8) have a final click stop = 1 stop. Sometimes lens manufacturers try to be accurate so you have wierd maximum apertures like f3 or f2.5 (which I suspect is the actual maximum aperture of the 85mm f2) but Olympus opted to display the standard aperture sequence and indicate with a line where in the sequence the maximum aperture lies. By specifying the maximum aperture correct to the nearest (higher) standard aperture setting they were effectively able to overstate their lens performance. It's not dishonest, it's marketing! </p>

<p>Had I been in your shoes, and I have been, when purchasing further lenses for my OM cameras, I would start to take into account a future option to move into the micro 4/3 system, or to combine my OM setup with the digital micro 4/3, whose best camera, to my opinion, the G-1, is of the same size as an OM.<br>

I.e. I will go for the Zuiko 28 f/2, which is as sharp as the 3.5, but it will give you with the micro 4/3 a fast standard lens (56mm equiv) for night outdoors. Yes it is more expensible but not a Leica tragedy. For OM shooting the 28 f2 may be a somewhat expensive lens, but for micro 4/3 it is a cornerstone MF lens.<br>

The Zuiko 135 f3.5 for OM cameras is a very special lens in its mix of soft/crispy results. A unique effect you may notice most with portraits. Besides it is small and light for its focal length, and low priced !</p>