Request for Zooms

[krishna_kodukula]

Hi folks-

 

I have an OM4Ti, which I intend using exclusively for print film, for

nature and some portraiture. I have a Zuiko 50 f1.4 and a 75-150 f4,

but am looking for something of a wider range, may be 70-300 f4 or

4.5. Does anyone have experience with non-Oly zooms such as Sigma?

At this time, I don't want to invest too much in primes. Thanks in

advance.

 

Krishna

[mark_bouquet1]

I don't think Sigma makes any manual focus lenses currently. Phoenix, Vivitar and Tamron all make some manual focus lenses, and they all make low priced 70-300mm zooms, but they don't make any 70-300's in manual focus either. That leaves Tokina, which does make a 75-300mm zoom for manual focus cameras, but for a mere $159.95 (B&H price) it's pretty hard to imagine how it could meet the expectations of a critical and demanding photographer. Paying too little, and asking for too much (in terms of zoom range) is an all but certain formula for inevitable disappointment. Of course that's just my opinion.

[lex_jenkins]

About the best third party zooms I've tried in the 80-200mm range were a Kiron and a Vivitar Series 1, both probably made by Kino Optical (tho' variations of the Vivitar Series 1 70-210/2.8-4 were made by Tokina, Komine and Cosina).

 

I've been satisfied with a couple of Tamron Adaptall wide angles (24/2.5 and 17/3.5) but an Adaptall zoom in the 80-200mm range was among the worst I've owned.

 

I wouldn't expect particularly good performance from an older zoom that encompassed a wider range of focal lengths, at least not at the extremes at or near full aperture. Might as well get a couple of decent primes. Even the relatively modest Zuiko 200/4 would probably give you better performance.

[simon evans.]

If you are buying secondhand you could try looking for a Tamron 60-300 SP f/3.8-5.4. Sigma made a variety of zooms, including a 75-300 f/4.5-5.6. With a 300mm lens for best results you will require a tripod or monopod to use it at most shutter speeds.

 

If you only need a lens up to 200mm there is plenty of choice. These are more compact and often have a faster maximum aperture, making them easier to focus.

[skip_williams]

The Tamron 60-300 is a good lens, but not great. There are very few xx-300 lenses available in OM mounts, as that genre didn't appear until the 90's, at which time most MF lenses were on the way out. Tamron's SP line of Adaptall lenses made during the 80's and 90's were top notch though. The 80-200/2.8 is one of the sharpest lenses that I ever had for my OM's except the big, white lenses; highly recommended.

 

Sigma lenses are usually of good quality. I had a compact 70-200 f/3.5-? Sigma zoom for a while that was a good traveling lens. And I had a 400 f/5.6 IF Sigma that also was fine. Try KEH for lenses, as they typically have a nice selection in OM mount.

 

Tokina AT-X lenses should also be looked at, as they're quality is superb. In fact, I have a 24-40 Tokina AT-X in OM mount that I'm looking to sell. Contact me offlist if you're interested.

 

Skip

[konrad_beck1]

I agree with Lex and Skip that the range of zoom lenses for the OM going up to 300mm is quite limited, and most will go down up to at least f/5.6. I also feel that the Tamron SP 60-300/3.8-5.4 is a decent lens but no comparison to a fix focal lens (I have the Tamron/Novoflex follow focus variant). Before I had a Soligor Macro Zoom C/D MC 60-300mm/4.5-5.6, and despite that it was highly recommended by the german "foto magazin" (I now know that these were all crap tests), I found it unusable: very soft, low resolution at anything longer than 200mm. You can find sort of a comprehensive list of what 3rd part lenses were availble at http://medfmt.8k.com/third/table3.txt

 

There you will realize that the 60 to 300mm range is occupied by a number of strange names which I don't associate with quality (Osawa, Rokina, access, toyo, telesar, marexar, rokunar, kalimar, sakar, quantaray, mitakon).

 

To Lex:

 

you can find out some details (manufacturer, year and week of production) on your Vivitar lens from the serial number as outlined on Stephen Gandy's page: "Who made that Vivitar lens?" http://www.CameraQuest.com/VivLensManuf.htm

[lex_jenkins]

Thanks, for the tip, Konrad. I've gotten quite a bit of info about Vivitar Series 1 lenses from Russ Butner, who's also done some research. And there was a former Vivitar rep who offered info to the OM mailing list regarding lens manufacturers.

 

From these various sources I've gathered that my Vivitar 70-210/2.8-4 Series 1 was made by Komine. It's a very good performer even wide open at the short end, tho' it needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 at the long end to be acceptable.

 

The 1:2.5 true close focusing macro feature is at the long end between 100-210mm where it's most useful. Some zooms in this focal length limit macro focusing to between 70mm or 80mm and 100mm-150mm. Not quite as useful even if sharp.

[simon evans.]

I tihnk you guys are getting slightly sidetracked - remember that Krishna is only shooting prints.

<p>

The Tamron 80-210 is not so bad. I have produced a 30x20" print from it that didn't look so terrible. It's not by any means stellar, but can be picked up for peanuts these days. Good as an inexpensive starter lens, if nothing else.

<p>

If you don't mind paying extra the Zuiko 65-200 f4 is at least as good as the 200 f4 fixed lens, and more flexible. Zuiko tester supermo Gary Reese said of the 65-200:

 

<blockquote><i>"My personal conclusion is that the 65-200 is the way to go for 180-200mm focal length shooting, if not 105 to 200mm shooting! I suspect that only the 180mm f/2 Zuiko can outperform it at 180-200mm, among Zuikos.</i>"</blockquote>

 

Kiron are apparently an underrated brand (they made the Series 1 for Vivitar at some time), and they produced a couple in the 70-210/80-200mm range. Tamron's premium SP lens in the 70-210mm was made in several incarnations, all were very good but not particularly compact or lightweight. OTOH some of the the later Sigma and Tokina RMC and SZX lenses (before they stopped making manual focus lenses) were suprisingly compact, although there is the necessary trade-off of slower max aperture. An Olympus Zuiko badged <a href="http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif/lensgroup/70-210mmf45-56.htm" title="OM SIF page">70-210 f4.5-5.6</a>, made by Cosina, was sold alongside the OM2000 (also made by Cosina) and could be another cheap option. It performed reasonably in Gary's tests.

 

Best bet is to shop around until you find something that suits your pocket, in both senses of the word.

[george_shihanian]

Even though you "don't want to invest too much in primes" that may be the way to go for your stated needs (portraiture and nature). If you are strictly limited in funds now and in the future, or if you just don't want to invest much $$$ in a film camera system, then I can see your desire. But if you can save enough, maybe even if you'll have more funds in the future, you'll never regret getting a couple of good primes, whereas down the road you may regret only owning a couple of mediocre zooms that you're trying to make into an all-you-need set.

 

You may be able to use that 75-150 in portraiture, but you really should get a F/2 lens for that. The 85/2 is considered by many to be the best choice. By "nature" do you mean macro shots of flowers, or do you mean shots of animals a couple hundred yards away, or even birds? We need to know in order to advise you. If you're shooting flowers, you'd need a lens badged as a "macro", or, you can get away with just a close-up filter set on a regular 50mm lens. If you're shooting something further away, I'd advise you to get a Zuiko 300/4.5. A 300/2.8 is better, but very much higher priced. Generally speaking, you should stay away from anything slower than say, F/4.5.

 

F/5.6 and F/8 lenses can be frustrating in actual use conditions.