Reflection on OM lenses

[matthew_newton]

<p>More of a commentary then really asking a question, maybe looking for a little commiseration. I wish Zuiko had expanded their lens choices a bit more. Don't get me wrong, they produced a huge number of lenses, by my count 64 different lenses including their macro line, the couple of AF OM mount lenses and telecoverters. To me at least that is a heck of a lot. I just wish they had produced a few more.<br>

More specifically a 70-200/80-200/70-210 f/2.8 zoom lens, a faster 85, a faster wide angle, a 1:1 50, 90 or 105mm macro (with auto diaphram) and either a more accessible 35-80/2.8 or else a 28-70/2.8 (preferably also more accessible then the 35-80/2.8 is). A mid range super tele would have also been nice (say a 400/5.6 instead of 6.3 or maybe a 450/5.6, they liked playing with odd focal lengths like 180, 250 and 350).<br>

So, really this is me just letting out hot air and I felt like I needed to. I guess in some ways I am fortunate that there were/are 3rd parties who produced OM mount lenses, but they just aren't Zuiko lenses. My Zuikos give me much more pleasure then any 3rd party lenses.<br>

That said Sigma has to fill in where Zuiko can't (sadly no faster 85mm lenses other then the spiratone 85/1.7 that I'll probably never acquire or use because the Zuiko 85/2 is just so damn much fun and half a stop isn't worth it). My Sigma 70-210/2.8, 400/5.6, 28/1.8, 50/2.8 1:1 macro and my very, very recently acquired 14/3.5 (as in last night). I also have/had a 28-70/2.8, but decided to part with it as I just don't use it.<br>

They just aren't as much fun as Zuiko lenses even if they can fill in where there isn't really a Zuiko equivelent.<br>

My Zuiko 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 85/2, 135/3.5 and now 24/2.8 and 35/2.8 are just so much, well...well pleasing to use. Part of why I got rid of my Sigma 24/2.8, it was a nice enough lens, but the Zuikos are just better (probably a little sharper, but really just more asthetically and haptically pleasing).<br>

I haven't used many 1st party lenses for other cameras, and certainly no Leica glass, but really the Zuiko's just have a feel and a look to them which I don't feel anyone else can, did or has matched maybe with the exception of Leica and a few offerings from some of the 1st parties here and there over the years.</p>

[george_shihanian]

>> My Zuiko 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 85/2, 135/3.5 and now 24/2.8 and 35/2.8 are just so much, well...well pleasing to use. <<

 

 

Well then, stop wasting time here commiserating and go out and shoot! ;^)

[User_502260]

<p>I like using my Zuikos too but one of the reasons I first got an OM camera was to be able to buy non-Zuikos in OM mount cheaply. Some of the OM mount non-Zuiko lenses I enjoy using are: 28/2.5 Vivitar Fixed Mount, 28/2 Soligor C/D, 55/2.8 Vivitar macro, 90/2.8 Vivitar macro, 135/2.8 Vivitar Close Focusing, 28-90/2.8-3.5 Vivitar Series 1, 35-70/2.5-3.5 Soligor C/D, 90/2.5 Tamron SP (2nd version), 24/2.8 Vivitar TX. A 28-85/2.8-3.8 Vivitar Auto Variable Focusing in OM mount is on its way from an eBay seller. I have this lens in Pentax K and Minolta MD mounts. It compares favorably with the 28-90 Series 1. </p>

[konrad_beck1]

<p>For the lenses you are missing, you have chosen the wrong system: If you read the Olympus lens patents, up to 1982 it was the goal to produce more "compact" lenses (this word is in nearly all their patents). A 70-200/2.8 defeats this purpose. Olympus was (and is) a commercial company who makes their products not for fun, but for a profit. So they had/have to select a program which actually finds their customers (and no, they do not earn one penny on all your lenses which you bought used on ebay). From the 60 "Olympus OM-System Lenses" (incl the 2 converters), 14 lenses account for 90% of all lens sales (by number, not value/price), and with 20 lenses it comes to 95%. So the remaining 40 lenses just make up for 5%.<br>

The ratio of Zuiko lenses to OM cameras (again not including the AF and PF series) is smaller than 1.2, which means that on average for only each fifth OM camera a second Zuiko lens was purchased (many -especially OM-10's- were sold with 3rd party zooms, and their owners probably have never purchased an Olympus lens). Interestingly, this ratio is similar to the Leica rangefinder and Leica lenses.</p>

 

[steve_lane2]

<p>When I first got into the OM system in 1982, the only Zuiko I owned was the 50mm f1.8, because it came with my OM1n. Shortly after, I began building my lens collection. All were third party, due to the huge saving it costs over the Zuiko's. I really enjoyed using all lenses (with the exception of a cheap Hanimex 80-210 zoom). However, images made with the zuiko 50mm had something about them that other lenses in my collection lacked. Sharpness aside, the color rendition looked better to me, as did the contrast.</p>

<p>So, in the early 1990's I decided to purchase a Zuiko 24mm F2.8, and was stunned by the results it delivered. So much so, I sold my third party wide-angles. I then got hold of the Zuiko 100mm F2.8 and was stunned not only by the results, but by its diminutive size. As this point, the remaining third party lenses in my collection were part exchanged as I became more and more addicted to Zuiko optics.</p>

<p>Even now, I still use and marvel at the wonderful lenses Olympus produced for the OM System. In many respects, they were truly groundbreaking. My collection has grown to about a dozen, some of which see very regular use (21mm F2, 35mm F2, 50mm F1.2 & 180mm F2.8 are the most used at the moment).</p>

<p>I am not knocking third party optics - some were very well built (Vivitar Series 1 for example) and delivered excellent results. But to me, Zuiko's contained a mix of image quality, design and functionality that, even now, astounds me. Like many people, I use digital cameras often. But if truth be told, I love nothing more that stepping out into a wide landscape with big skies, carrying simply an OM body, a couple of lenses, and tripod.</p>

<p>Best Regards, Steve. </p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>Steve, that is exactly what I have found and been finding as I collect more and more Zuiko lenses. There is just something about not only their looks and how they feel, but also about how they take pictures that is just different then any 3rd party lens I've used (in a good way). A number of my Sigmas are really good, the 70-210/2.8 APO is really, really excellent, but it just doesn't have the same feel as any of my Zuikos.<br>

I certainly understand a number of the design decisions by Zuiko/Olympus, but the lack of a 70-200/2.8 still doesn't make sense to me. In the mid 80's they introduced the 180/2, 250/2 and 350/2.8 mainly to try to get some of the sports shooters to switch to the OM system, why not introduce a 70-200/2.8 at the same time? Nikon and Canon had them then, not that Zuiko should emulate everything the other big companies did, but if they were really trying to get the sports shooters it would have made sense to me to also have built a 70-200/2.8, or heck a 65-200/2.8 to be the 65-200/4's big brother.<br>

Same goes with a faster 85, though I did notice that they prototyped an 85/1.4, just never produced it (other then a rumored 50 demonstrator copies which I'd sell my first born if I could ever get my hands on one). I guess the 85/1.4 just came around too late for them to decide to produce it, but man I wish they had.<br>

Just like I also wish they had produced something like a 28/1.4 or 1.8 or 35/1.4 or 1.8 (or heck a 21 or 24 1.8 or 1.4) and a 135/2. C'est la vie. A wider then 18mm would have been nice, but really 18mm is wide enough for most things (I just got a Sigma 14/3.5 to go as wide as humanly possible in OM mount and still be rectilinear, that and a Zuiko 18/3.5 right now is at least $300-400 out of my price range though I still want to get one eventually).<br>

I understand ROI decisions, etc, but since the margin tends to be a lot higher on 'faster' lenses it still seems like it would have made sense to put a few million in to R&D and production capability for a few additional lenses that 'were missing' from the line because of the high margines, even if it only meant selling a few thousand copies of a lens (such as the 85/1.4, the 90/2 macro never sold very many, but it was high margine, I suspect if Zuiko had introduced an 85/1.4 at the same time or earlier they probably would have sold more copies of that then the 90/2 macro).</p>

[rob_h5]

<p>Matt I understand you are trying to let out hot air and believe me everybody here feels the same way and understands your frustration and wishes Olympus just made better zooms for the OM system. But they didn't. With the exception of the OM Zuiko 35-85mm f2.8 ED zoom lens all of their zooms were really just "average". The fact is Olympus OM Zuiko best lenses were all prime lenses.</p>

<p>Unfortunately when Olympus [OM ] introduced most of their zoom lenses in 1980's zoom technology was still fairly new and nowhere near the technology of today's zoom lenses. Even if Olympus made a faster Zuiko OM 70-200/80-200/70-210 f/2.8 it wouldn't have been better than Sigma APO zooms or Vivitar Series I or Tokina and many other hi end third party zoom lenses. So in the case of zoom lenses, like the Sigma 70-210/2.8 APO zoom that you have is a perfect example, many third party zooms with the OM mount were actually better and surpassed in quality nearly all the OM Zuiko zoom lenses ever made.</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>*sigh* True. I guess more then anything I wish that Olympus had successfully created an auto focus OM camera with autofocus lenses that were actually backwards compatible and continued to produce new lenses up through the 90's at least (including all those lenses I talked about).<br>

Dreams, sigh.<br>

Well when the day comes that I finally get tired of the 'limitations' of the OM mount I'll just move to something full frame and carry my zuikos with me to the new mount.</p>

[gregory_logiodice1]

<p >I agree that the OM’s system’s lack of a f2.8 70/80-200mm lens is a significant gap in the OM system line up. Konrad’s point about Olympus’ focus on development of compact, prime lenses, rather than big, fast lenses such as a 2.8 aperture 70/80-200mm zoom, is the best explanation I’ve heard for why this gap exists. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >To be sure, nothing else is a Zuiko, and I can only imagine the quality of the lens Olympus could have produced as a companion to the fantastic f2.8 35-80mm zoom in the 80-200mm range. That said, as Rob points out, I think you already own an outstanding alternative – the Sigma 70-210/2.8. While it does lack the build quality and “feel” of a Zuiko, optically it is an excellent performer. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >And in terms of price, I am certain the Sigma is far more affordable than anything Olympus would have produced in that range. Leicaphiles may object to the comparison, but a good copy of the Leica 70–180mm f/2.8 Vario-APO-Elmarit-R zoom just sold for $4,000…. </p>

[User_502260]

<p>Before the time of the EOS line Canon did not have a fast medium telephoto zoom. The 80-200/4L in FD mount is very highly regarded by people who frequent the FD forum but if you wanted an original Canon fast medium telephoto you could use an 85/1.2L or a 135/2 New FD or a 200/2.8 (later a 200/1.8). Canon just didn't make a zoom lens faster than f/4 in the 80-200 range. The same is true for Minolta. Before the Maxxum series in 1985, Minolta's fastest zoom in this range was the 70-210/4 MD. I have one of these and it's a very nice lens. The market for fast zooms in the 80-200 range was limited and someone with a Canon or Minolta could get such a lens from Tamron or Tokina. I don't know how many fast 80-200s Olympus cound have sold even if it had one. </p>

[jim_baker6]

<p>If I were to imagine the main thrust of the Olympus OM development it would be something like this: Olympus/Maitani admire the Leica camera and decide to make an SLR version. The clues are the size and even the original description: M-1. The design brief for the first series of lenses for the OM 1 includes the requirement for them to be small (Leice-like in size, and matched to the OM 1). Then we have the OM2-4 developments where Olympus is trying to achieve Leica-like quality and mystique. Leica-like, they do not add too many features (I admire them for that) but those they do add (e.g. multi spot metering) are really well thought out. They are aiming at the professional user and they probably thought: for these guys the end result is everything. Now a different design brief is given to the lens designers: design a series of lenses, all f2, where image quality is paramount (i.e. forget zooms). Also, forget size and weight, (cost, too, for that matter!). So they develop a second series that includes the 50 MACRO, 90 MACRO, 100, 180, 250, 350, all fixed focal length, all f2. If this was the marketing thrust within Olympus it's easy to see that their zoom development would not have been so well resourced. By the time the OM 3Ti came along zooms were accepted by everyone so their last lens (the 35-80 zoom) was developed, in which as before image quality was paramount. </p>