Olympus OM lenses for travel

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>My wife and I are going to Europe to celebrate our 25th this June (although our 25th was this past September) and I have decided to take a film SLR with me instead of one of my RF cameras. We'll also have a P&S digital and maybe my D40 but I'm pretty keen on shooting film while I am there.</p>

<p>The problem is that I mostly use my various RF cameras. I have a few SLRs but I don't use them all that much and I don't have a lot of lenses. Of the SLR's I have I decided to take either my OM1n or my OM2n (I'm leaning heavily toward the OM2n). It's small and light and has a great big viewfinder. I have a "Made in Japan" 50/1.8 and that's it for lenses.</p>

<p>So, where should I go form here. Having just bought tickets the camera fund is running low. I have been looking at a 28/3.5 and am thinking a longer lens or a OM zoom would be a good idea. Any thoughts?</p>

 

[jamesmck]

<p>I have and like the very compact <a href="http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif/lensgroup/35-70mmf35-45.htm">Zuiko 35-70mm/f3.5-4.5 zoom</a> . One could easily travel with it alone. Very reasonably priced.<br /> <strong><br /> </strong></p>

[bonsignore_ezio]

<p>Welcome this side of the pond. The 28/3.5 is an excellent idea, also due to the fact that it is available at fairly reasonable prices. The suggestion for a Zuiko 35-70 is also very valid, but these tend to get pricey. Perhaps you could settle for a similar zoom by a third party supplier - if you stay with a respected name, the difference would not be that big.<br>

Unless budgetary or/and lightweight considerations absolutely dictate it, I would however reject the notion of going for the zoom alone. There is a BIG difference between 1.8 and 3.5 max. aperture for low light level shots.</p>

[pje]

<p>Olympus lenses are light and small so taking a few lenses isn't much heavier (or about the same) than RF lenses. I still occasionally take one of my OM bodies traveling with 28 f/2.8, 50 f/1.4 & 100 f/2.8. The 28 f/2.8 is cheap these days so no need to go for the 3.5. The 50 was always a good lens, no reason to leave it behind. I like the 100 and use it over a 135 or 200, but then I am usually shooting people. I was never a fan of the zoom lenses available for the OM and the offerings in the 70s when I bought my most of my OM gear were so good. Although I have some OM mount zoom lenses I haven't used them in 25 years. <br>

If I was to take only 1 lens it would be the 35 f/2, (not real cheap), but the 35 f/2.8 can be had for $75 or so, (check KEH).</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p> That big, heavy bag's going to be hard for Mrs McKearny to schlep around Europe :-)</p>

<p> I'd take the OM-2n, but without knowing what kind of thing you like to photograph, it's hard to say what to take. I also have and like the fleaweight OM 35-70/3.5-4.5. I'd be tempted to take my 24/2 85/2 Zuikos.</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>Fair enough...</p>

<p>I prefer shooting buildings and landscapes as opposed to people although I'll be there with my wife and 7 year old so I will getting people shots as well. I like to shoot available light (inside museums and cathedrals and such). I also like to shoot details of stuff so I like to get close. To be honest the main reason I am leaning toward taking my OM2 is that my RF cameras cannot get closeups and my OM2+50/1.8 does a great job with that.</p>

<p>Right now I am thinking the 28/3.5 appeals to me as a WA lens. From the samples I have see I think it is a bit nicer than the 28/2.8 and I'll be in Spain in June so I'm not too worried about the slower speed.. I am also looking at a 35-70/3.6 or perhaps a longer prime to round it out.</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<blockquote>

<p>That big, heavy bag's going to be hard for Mrs McKearny to schlep around Europe</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's why I chose the OM over my Konica T2. That thing is HUGE.</p>

[henricus]

<p>Another vote for the 35/2.8. Depending on what you want it for, the 135/3.5 is also dandy, although not as fast. But if you have the 50, you'll be okay.</p>

[sw12dz]

<p>My wife and I just returned from an overseas trip. I took my Canon EF with only one lens, the 50mm f1.4. For your everyday tourist shots it proved to be just fine and I didn't feel like I had an anvil hanging from my neck at the end of the day. My digital P&S came in handy at times, but I really enjoyed shooting film and the challenge of carrying and using only one prime lens. Save your money and spend it on film and processing.</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>My wife and I just returned from an overseas trip. I took my Canon EF with only one lens, the 50mm f1.4. For your everyday tourist shots it proved to be just fine and I didn't feel like I had an anvil hanging from my neck at the end of the day. My digital P&S came in handy at times, but I really enjoyed shooting film and the challenge of carrying and using only one prime lens. Save your money and spend it on film and processing.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

Since I am more used to my fixed lens RF cameras I am pretty comfortable shooting with just one lens and the 50/1.8 is very similar to the assorted 45/1.7 and 45/1.8 lenses that I am used to. That being said, I would like to have a WA lens to shoot landscapes (we'll be seeing a lot of castles and such in Spain and France).

 

</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Wide angle lenses generally are not useful for landscapes. You wind up with a picture with a whole lotta nothing. 100mm might be more interesting.<br>

Where a 28mm or 35mm can shine is for streetscapes.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

The Zuiko 70-150 is a nice lens too. If I were going I'd bring my 28 mm f3.5, 50 mm f3.5 macro, 70-150 f4, and a 2x

converter

[Andy Collins]

<p><strong>Kevin,</strong> I'm quite new to the OM system but becoming hopelessly hooked on it. At present the only lenses I have are the Zuiko 50/1.4, 28/3.5, and the 35-70/3.5-4.5. The 35-70 is a lot of fun to use and covers a great range of subjects. It's also <em>very</em> sharp! I think I'd feel pretty comfortable taking either my OM-1 or 1n (yes, I've already bought a second OM body...) with just the 35-70.</p>

<p><strong>Stuart</strong> , I hope you share some pics from your trip taken with your EF and 50/1.4 combo. A wonderful camera with a fantastic lens!</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p><strong>Andy</strong>...I just recently ended up with a number of SLR bodies (I got them free in a few lots I bought trying to pick up a particular RF camera). I ended up with a Konica TC, T2 and a Ricoh CR-5. They all seem perfectly nice but compared to my OM bodies they feel clunky and huge (well the T2 actually IS huge). BTW, which 35-70 do you have? Do you have the 3.5-4.5 or the 3.6?</p>

<p><strong>John</strong>...I have always been of the impression that you want WA for landscapes. In SPain I'll be taking a lot of shots of old castles and such so I was figuring WA would be the ticket. I have to think this over.</p>

<p> </p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>I have the 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5. It's pretty lightweight and compact, despite being a zoom.</p>

[tomscott]

<p>Unless I'm mistaken the 35-70 f/3.6 is generally the more expensive lens of the 4 that Olympus made. There is the 3.5-4.5 that Andy has, I have a 3.5-4.8 (all plastic body) which is much lighter than my 50 f/1.8, there is the 35-70 f/3.6 and then there is a 35-70 f/4.0 of which KEH has one rated EX for $56.00. So far I haven't seen a bad Olympus lens.</p>

[peter_de_waal]

 

<p >I used OM's for weddings, riots, funerals, general news work etc. for about 6 years. I had 4 OM-1's and an OM-10. My move to Olympus was brought on by years of lugging Nikon F's...</p>

<p > </p>

<p >For lenses I had multiple samples of:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >21f/3.5; 24f/2.8; 28f/2.8; 28f/3.5, 35f/2.0; 35f/2.8; 50f/1.8 (silver nose and later MC); 50f/1.4MC; 50f/3.5 Macro; 80f/4.0 Macro; 85f/2.0; 100f/2.8; 135f/2.8 and the 135f/3.5. Many repairs later I gave up on them and went to Leica-M - roughly same size as OM, much heavier, much better lenses.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Of the OM lenses the standouts for me were the 21f/3.5; 28f/3.5; 35f/2.8 and the 100f/2.8. I thought the rest were pretty so-so optically. If you need a 50 I would get the single-coated 50f/1.8 chrome-nose.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I personally prefer the look of a 35mm over a 28mm as a wide, so for you proposed trip I would take the 35f/2.8; 50f/1.8; 100f/2.8 and the 21f/3.5 if I could find one. These are also some of the lightest Zuiko's which will help your back, given all the other paraphernalia of travel.</p>

 

[simon_bruxelles]

<p>My experience of Zuiko zooms was deeply disappointing. I'd keep your kit as compact and light as possible and take a pocket tripod or a bean bag for interior shots. You won't notice the difference between F2 or F2.8 and F3.5 in Spain in the summer and if you do need to take pictures at dusk you can always use a faster film or prop the camera. If your budget is tight the 28mm F3.5 and the 135mm F3.5 can be found for very little and with the 50mm F1.8 will cover almost everything you are likely to want to do. </p>

[harris_goldstein1]

<p>My pick would be a 28mm and a short telephoto prime (85 to 100mm). But short OM telephotos are expensive. You could go with a 135mm in necessary for cost reasons. But I might go for a good third-party 90mm macro. I've found the macro useful for capturing details on ironwork etc.<br>

Another option would be a 28-85mm third-party zoom. My 28-85 Tamron has surprising good image quality. But it seems to weigh about as much as a 28mm and a 100mm OM prime combined.<br>

The 50mm will continue to be useful for low light.<br>

So, if you're buying one more lens, I think you're on track with the 28mm. But I'd opt for the 90mm macro as my third lens.</p>

 

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>Thanks for all the terrific input. I am still leaning heavily toward the 28/3.5. I like the idea of the 35-70/3.6 zoom but I have always been wary of zooms so I'm feeling a bit iffy on that one. I like the idea of the short telephotos but they are pricey (remember I still have to pay for the tickets so funds are low). </p>

 

[leo_papandreou1]

<p>I have the 28 3.5. It's better than the 28 2.8 but neither is as good as the 24 2.8, which is <a href="http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/24mmcup/final/24mm_final1.html">just great</a> . The 50 and 24 are the ideal walkabout combination, IMO.</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<blockquote>

<p>I have the 28 3.5. It's better than the 28 2.8 but neither is as good as the 24 2.8, which is <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/24mmcup/final/24mm_final1.html" target="_blank">just great</a> . The 50 and 24 are the ideal walkabout combination, IMO.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree but the 24/2.8 is out of my price range right now.</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>In case anyone is interested...I ordered a 35-70/3.5-4.5 from KEH (yesterday). I am planning to take that and my 50/1.8 and call it a day.</p>

[peter_naylor1]

<p>Hi, Kevin A wide-angle lens is a must in Europe, what with all those narrow streets in the old parts of town. The 28mm F3.5 Zuiko is a fine lens for such occasions, but there will be times when a standard FL lens or even a slight tele are needed. The last time I visited Britain I took along just one lens - my Vivitar Ser 1 28 - 90 mm F2.8 zoom, and a fine job it did - although its weight and size can be a bit of a nuisance. However, its size did help in a way because I didn't pack any tripod, and I found I could take night time exposures or slow (say 1/15th) shots in museums where flash wasn't permitted, by nestling the camera's carry strap under the lens as a support on any convenient surface, then using the self-timer to minimize shake.</p>

<p>Regarding which OM body to take, I'd go with the 'KISS' principle and take an OM1n like I did. What with Murphy's Law, it's nice to know that if the battery failed (which it didn't) I could still take pics thanks to the mechanical shutter. I f you take the higher tech OM2n, either you have to pack along lots of spare batteries just in case,, or rely on being able to buy them in Europe. ML has it that batteries invariably fail on a Sunday when you're in some really remote place, so better to stay with the OM1n.<br>

PETE IN PERTH</p>

[teos]

<p>Hi,Kevin!<br />You need low-light handheld capability in Europe.There are lots of places where you need to<br />shoot indoors in very dim light and there is no flash but no tripod allowed also. I'd say that you<br />need a wide and a normal prime both fastest possible.I understand that the 24mm f/2.8 is out<br />of financial range and the 21mm f/2 also ... so I'd say 28mm f/2.8(the f/2 would be<br />great) plus 50mm f/1.8 (1.4 would be great).<br />I'd say also that it's important the film , you need at least 400 ISO (I'd take at least 1 roll<br />of Superia X-tra 800 ) for interior low-light handheld and 100 ISO for exterior . this leads us<br />at another issue : personally ,I'd take 2 film bodies charged with slow and fast film,but it's<br />only me...If you are shooting slides ,Velvia 50 and Sensia 400 for indoor.<br />For the slight tele I'd stay with the compact digital if it has a 100mm equivalent.<br />Of course, if you don't want to carry 2 bodyes you 'll take only one , but you must organise very well your indoor shooting which is rather difficult in such a trip.<br />There is also the problem (or not?) of the scanned film at the airport security to be considered.<br>

and ...have a good trip !!!</p>

<p> </p>