Whats your favorite Olympus OM zoom?

<p><strong>Just for fun what is the BEST Olympus OM zoom you have ever shot with? It could be Olympus OM brand or 3rd party zoom.</strong></p>

<p>For me hands down its the <strong>Angenieux 35-70mm f2.5-3.3 zoom in Olympus OM mount</strong>. This interesting French made Angenieux zoom is a retrofocus lens originally designed by Angenieux in the 1950s. A little history here, these Angenieux zooms made in 1990s are the only <strong>100% 3rd party European zooms</strong> that I know of made for 35mm Japanese SLR cameras. The only exception would be Contax which were Japanese Yashica/Kyocera made cameras since the 1970s. Carl Zeiss Jenazoom lenses as some may know were made by Sigma of Japan and licensed through Carl Zeiss of Germany. Even todays Zeiss (ZE, ZF, ZA, ZK...ect mounts) lenses (introduced 2008) are made by Cosina of Japan.</p>

<p>The Angenieux has separate control rings for focusing and setting the focal length. Here is a photo of my Angenieux 35-70 f2.5 zoom on my Olympus OM-3 camera. The IQ, sharpness, contrast and color rendition of the Angenieux is gorgeous and rivals Canon L zoom lenses. Some really neat features include a MACRO setting and fast and bright <strong>f2.5 aperture</strong> faster than todays zooms. Also the silky smooth focus and zoom rings remind me of the old Angenieux cinema zooms I used on Arriflex cameras.</p>

<p>Angenieux made mounts in Canon AF, Canon FD, Nikon AF, Nikon AIS, Pentax, Sony/Minolta AF, Leica and Olympus OM mounts. Unfortunately for Olympus OM photographers the RAREST CAMERA MOUNT IS OLYMPUS OM! As if the Angenieux zoom lenses were not rare enough by itself, they only made a handful in Olympus OM mount. All the AF mounts made work perfectly with Digital SLR cameras. And Olympus OM Angenieux zooms can be mounted (with adapter) on Canon DSLR (Full Frame is recommended for WA use) I posted a sample photo with some French red wine keeping with season a Thanksgiving theme. :)</p>

<p>If anyone is interested here are some of the specs of the exotic and rare Angenieux 35-70mm f2.5 zoom.<br /><br />Maximum aperture: f2.5 at 35mm, f2.8 at 50mm, f3.3 at 70mm<br />Minimum aperture: f22<br />Optical construction: 11 elements<br />Min focusing distance: 1 meter at 35mm, 46 cms from 50 to 70mm<br />Macro: 1:5.6<br />Length: 136mm<br />Weight: 525 grams<br />Max diameter: 71mm<br />Filter size: 58mm<br />Supplied items: Removable square hood, 58mm UV filter, intermediate<br /> filter holder</p>

<p>Angenieux 35-70 f2.5 zoom on my Olympus OM-3 camera.</p><div></div>

<p>French red wine keeping with the Thanksgiving season, shot with the exotic and rare Angenieux 35-70mm f2.5 zoom.</p><div></div>

<p>Looks awesome, pity the name is a bit of a mouthful!</p>

<p>Haha :D Chris "Angenieux" does take some practice to pronounce, its not so bad, I dont speak much French myself but I now I can say it very easily. I first learned the name operating Angenieux zooms on Arriflex movie cameras. IMO <em>Voigtländer</em> is much harder to pronounce as my French is much better than my German!</p>

<p>Anyone have their favorite Olympus OM Zuiko zooms to share or 3rd party OM mount zooms?</p>

<p>I mostly use OM primes, but I'm always impressed with the Zuiko 35-70 f/3.6. Very sharp, very smooth and solid (IIRC, the focusing ring rotates on something like 372 tiny ball bearings). I bought an sold a couple of these on Fleabay, and finally acquired a mint example with the matching clamp-on rubber hood for a decent price. The only downside is the weight - it's quite a hefty piece of kit to have hanging off the front of an otherwise jewel-like OM SLR - hence my preference for primes.<br /> <br />BTW, the Angenieux is beautiful.</p>

<p>David, I totally agree with you about Olympus OM Zuiko primes. All the Olympus OM Zuiko lenses I have shot with: 18/3.5, 21/3.5 85/2, 100/2.8 , 100/2 ED prime lenses were outstanding. I especially like the 100/2 ED with ED glass. IMO the best two OM Zuiko zoom lenses Olympus ever made for professional photography were the <strong>Olympus OM Zuiko 35-70 f/3.6 and Olympus OM 35-80 f2.8</strong> <strong>ED</strong> both were the only "constant" aperture Zuiko zooms Olympus made.</p>

<p>And your Zuiko 35-70/3.6 zoom is actually lighter than the Angenieux 35-70/2.5~3.6 zoom at 400g compared to 525g. Still both these lenses are lightweights compared to the OM Zuiko 35-80/2.8 ED.</p>

<p>The only "ED" zoom Olympus made for the OM system was the pricey and rare Zuiko 35-80/2.8 ED zoom. The Angenieux SLR zooms were made with "APO glass" (similar as ED glass) but I guess since it has less focal length coverage its lighter in weight. I found the Angenieux 35-70/2.5 lens coating (purple/green reflections) to be almost identical to the movie cine made Angenieux zooms.</p>

<p>I just wish they designed an affordable Olympus OM Zuiko 35-70mm f3.6 ED zoom!</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/3570mm.htm">http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/3570mm.htm</a></p>

<p>The Zuiko 65-200 f/4 zoom is <strong>great</strong>...if you can find one without haze in the rear group (a common problem)</p><div></div>

<p>I have to agree with Rob on the Zuiko 35-70mm f/3.6. I'm not a big fan of "super normal" zooms but this is the best zoom, in that range, I've ever used.</p><div></div>

<p>Don't forget the unloved 75-150mm f/4 zoom. Well, at least I love it.<br>

I also have the 35-70/3.5-4.5 which is great. It is small and light and very sharp. Amazingly different from the 28-70 Tokina.<br>

The 75-150 and 35-70 are constant focus and don't require a refocus after changing the zoom.</p>

<p>And the 35-105 is a perfect single-lens walkaround. Very versatile, nice contrast and beautiful color rendition.</p>

<p>I have a bunch that I've never even used - all in perfect condition. I guess people kept their zooms on the shelf over the years. These include the 100-200 Zuiko, a 70-260 Vivitar that is the size of a Suburban. And there are the 28-70 and 70-210 Tokinas. Again these are all like new and should produce great photos but I have never tried them out.</p>

<p>If I go digging I might even find a couple more that I've forgotten were there.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have tried four 75-150 zooms in the last year, every single one had significant internal haze. Makes me leery of trying any more. I would love a 35-70 2.8 though!</p>

<p>For the 75-150 pull out that lens hood, shoot a roll and shock yourself. They are really nice lenses.<br>

Haze can happen on old lenses. I bought 3 75-150's in the past 2 years and all were crystal clear. None cost me over $30 US and 2 of them made wonderful gifts.<br>

Who makes the 35-70 2.8? </p>

<p>Here's one from a $29 75-150<br>

<img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8335/8149859711_36e77a9677.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /></p>

<p>Sorry Bill I meant the 35-80 f/2.8 Zuiko.</p>

<p>I shot a roll through the four 75-150s I had and it was awful, they were knackered, full of haze. I will get a good one someday!</p>

<p>The Angenieux "2x35" 35-70mm 1/2.5-3.3 was not produced in the 1990s but from 1983 to 1987 (I doubt that it was developed in the 1950s). The 11 elements are in 8 groups. My lens in OM mount has a length of 120, not 136mm. I also doubt that "they only made a handful in Olympus OM mount"; you might want to go shopping in French used photo department shops where I have gotten mine for ca. Euro 200 a few years ago. The total production (in all mounts) was about 15,000.<br>

Similarly to the Zuiko 35-70/3.6, zooming of the front group acts as an additional hood.</p>

<p>"... Angenieux zoom is a retrofocus lens originally designed by Angenieux in the 1950s"<br>

<br />I think what is meant is that Angenieux introduced the retrofocus fixed focal lens design for still cameras in 1950 (a 35mm/2.5 lens). For cine cameras, this design was used since the 1930s.</p>

<p>Well, I've owned a few Oly 75-150 zooms over the past 30-odd years and I wasn't happy with any of them, even when brandy new. The resulting shots were generally lacking in contrast, color and sharpness.</p>

<p>My all-around favorite zoom is the Zuiko 35-70 f 3.5-4.5 for its small size, lightness and sharp images. There was also a Vivitar Series 1 28-90 that was excellent too. But I really like to use the small Zuikos on the slim Olympus bodies, and not some other brand's huge, heavy lens. To me, it kinda defeats the purpose of the small, light Olympus bodies to mount a heavy lens. (Apologies to the Angenieux users, I know they are great lenses!)</p>

<p>I've owned a 75~150, and 65~200 Zuikos. Never regretted selling either, not because of performance but I regularly used them at their longest focal length and so could dispense with them and replace them with the small 135 f3.5 and 200 f5 Zuikos. The one zoom I obtained used and stupidly sold was the 28~48 f4 Zuiko S. I actually found that zoom ratio the most useful for me. I bought it for $40 and sold it for $115 but it was a dumb move. I also have the little 35~70 f3.5~4.5 Zuiko S, it is little and handy but I prefer 28mm on the wide end.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, the Angenieux is beautiful.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks David. Its one of the most beautifully designed lenses I have ever seen, leave it to the genius of the French. Its like the Ferrari of the zoom lenses! :D</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have to agree with Rob on the Zuiko 35-70mm f/3.6.<br>

Sorry Bill I meant the 35-80 f/2.8 Zuiko.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Louis and Chris I agree with both of you, the OM Zuiko 35-70 f3.6 lens and the OM Zuiko 35-80mm ED lens are the best OM zooms IMO, they are the fastest "constant" aperture zooms in the OM system.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 11 elements are in 8 groups<br />My lens in OM mount has a length of 120, not 136mm<br /> ...was not produced in the 1990s but from 1983 to 1987</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>None of what you stated above is correct. Here is a actual French Angenieux zoom lens manual below. Its in French but you can read the specs. Optical construction: 11 elements in 11 groups. The length of the lens is 136mm. Production of the Angenieux zoom lens for 35mm SLR was up until 1994.</strong></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The total production (in all mounts) was about 15,000.<br /> I also doubt that "they only made a handful in Olympus OM mount"; you might want to go shopping in French used photo department shops where I have gotten mine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Even if that is true, 15,000 lens is not a lot if you divide the number mounts they made:</strong><br>

<strong>Canon AF, Canon FD, Nikon AF, Nikon AIS, Pentax, Contax, Sony/Minolta AF, Minolta (SR)MD, Leica and Olympus OM.</strong><br>

That comes out to only 1500 each if its an even production! And for Olympus OM it could be far less than that if the bulk of production was the more popular Canon and Nikon.Where are you getting 15000 anyway? Do you have a link or spec sheet you can share? Yes France is the only exception where you may have a "better" chance of finding Angenieux SLR zooms but even there they are rare. Outside of France they are even more extremely rare zoom lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Angenieux lens manual.</p><div></div>

<p>Either way, very few could ever claim the Angenieux as a favorite.</p>

<p>Even the 35-80/2.8 Zuiko is a rare and expensive proposition.</p>

<p>Should this thread be retitled as: "Who owns the most rare and expensive Olympus OM Zoom, and wants to come here and brag about it" ?</p>

 

<p>Haha Bill no one's bragging here. You misunderstood the point of the whole thread. :/ You said it you yourself the Angenieux zoom isnt for anyone so everything is subjective. Other prefer Zeiss, Zuiko...ect. As I mentioned before the OM Zuiko 35-80mm is amazing and I would love to see someone chime in with examples.</p>

<p>I even praised the humble OM Zuiko 35-70 3.6 many times as an excellent zoom lens. I was just trying to clear up a lot incorrect facts that were stated before on previous page, thats it. No wrong or right answers here on lens choice ... its what works for <em>you</em>.</p>

 

<p>Rob, you are right that I should have given the source of the data in the first place: the 15,000 production figure, manufacturing period 1983 to 1987, and 11 elements in 8 groups comes from the book: P.H. Pont:<em>Angénieux</em> (Paris: Éditions du Pécari, 2003). This book also gives as mount for this lens: Canon FD (not EF), Contax MM, Leica R, Minolta MD (not AF), Nikon AIS (not AF), Pentax K, M42 and Olympus OM. This lens seems also to have been sold in Alpa mount where the author indicates that this might be an M42 lens with a PRAKTIBAG adapter. I imagine that the author has gotten the 8 groups wrong by assuming that the closely spaced elements 2 to 4 with apparently similar opposite surface curvatures would be cemented together (for a 35mm still lens, this would be very unlikely although there were multi-element cemented groups in cine lenses), thus I believe the picture of your manual (which is in German, not French, so take the right dictionary if you want to translate it) gives the right 11 elements in 11 groups design. These closely spaced and similarly curved elements certainly demand extra care to avoid internal reflections and thus the 50+ multicoating might have been taken as an approach to diminish the problem. Nonetheless, the lens is very prone to flare, based on my experience and pictures presented in the mflenses forum (http://forum.mflenses.com/angenieux-2-5-3-3-35-70mm-leica-r-mount-t19877,start,30.html) from were you have obviously copied "your" picture of the manual, or are you Mr. Hinnerker?).</p>

<p>The given length of 120mm I have measured on my lens (OM mount) in infinity position from the front to the camera flange. This seems usual practice as also all OM Zuiko lens length data are given in this way. At closest focus (0.46m), this length (of my lens, at least) is 134mm. BTW, the weight determined on a recently calibrated balance is 544g instead of the 525g as stated in the manual, but this will depend on mount.</p>

<p> The P.H. Pont book also presents a table correlating Angenieux's serial numbers to production years. Serial numbers 1476845 to 1528999 span the 1983-1987 period: if you want any Angenieux lens produced after the begin of 1990, your serial number should be >1536500 (mine is 14926xx = 1984). A quick search on current ebay sales (there is currently one 35-70/2.5 in OM mount, and one sold last week for ca. $750; so with yours, mine, and the two ebay lenses we nearly have all of the handful of lenses produced in OM mount ...) indicates that all of their sn in the various mounts fall into the 1983-1987 production period stated.</p>

<p> ".....1500 each if its an even production! And for Olympus OM it could be far less than that if the bulk of production was the more popular Canon and Nikon."</p>

<p> I suspect that the Canon FD mount wasn't too popular as Canon had its own 35-70/2.8-3.5 lens since 1979 in a similar price range as the Angenieux lens. The most popular mount was probably the Leica R, as Leitz hasn't had much of zoom lenses on offer (and Leica owners are used to Angenieux's prices). As mentioned above there seem to have been 8 mounts (your manual says 6) available.</p>

<p> "Production of the Angenieux zoom lens for 35mm SLR was up until 1994."</p>

<p> Angenieux has indeed produced a zoom lens for 35mm still cameras in the 1990s, but this was a 28-70/2.6 AF lens available in Canon EF, Minolta AF, Nikon AF mount (production period 1989-1994 acc. P.H. Pont).</p>

<p> Am I a fan of the 35-70mm Angenieux lens? Not really; besides being lighter and smaller (though obviously a full stop slower), I always preferred the 30-70/3.6 Zuiko lens for image quality. Given the price I paid for the Angenieux, I just couldn't resist.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>These closely spaced and similarly curved elements certainly demand extra care to avoid internal reflections and thus the 50+ multicoating might have been taken as an approach to diminish the problem. Nonetheless, the lens is very prone to flare, based on my experience.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Konrad, thank you for clearing this up. As for <strong>lens flare</strong> I have had the same experience as you have with the lens flare issue. The color rendition from the Angenieux is beautiful!! better than any zoom I have shot with... that said, however it has <em>major</em> problems with lens flare and as you probably discovered the Angenieux lens hood is almost useless in preventing this. The lens flare is so bad I am thinking of purchasing another lens hood. In my Angenieux zoom the flare is kind of a 1970s "anamorphic lens flare" too at least in my version which is unusual and something you usually only see in cine lenses! :D</p>

<p>My Angenieux 35-70mm f2.5 lens did not come with any manual (yes I know its German but its a typo), it was purchased at a bargain and its in great mechanical / optical shape so I could not resist either ;) . This was the only info I could find anywhere and I uploaded here purely as educational reference on the Angenieux 35-70mm. Its the only info I could find on this lens regarding the (correct) number of lens groups or any of the specs. It was very interesting what you said about the 50+ multicoating and confusion with the author in the other book about counting the correct number of the lens groups. In any case I think we cleared it up for anyone else reading this. The whole point here was to educate people on high caliber zoom lenses, most people have never heard of this lens because of its scarcity and price and except for the two of us in this thread most people have never even shot with one. The Angenieux is a fantastic zoom IMO. Happy shooting!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I remember reading some good things optically about the Angenieux zooms when they came out all those years ago but what put me off them, apart from their very high price at launch, was their plastic bodies. I felt that if I was going to pay that much for a lens then it should at least be metal! Of course, I don't mind plastic (polycarbonate or whatever) so much now in photographic equipment as it's proved quite good over the years but I still maintain you can't beat brass and glass. :-)</p>