Best zoom lens for landscape photography

[petes-photoworld]

<p>I own an OM4ti, and currently use both a wide angle 24mm & 35-80 zoom lens for landscape photography. I am considering adding a another lens to compliment these, and thinking of a zoom lens in the 65-250 range.<br>

I have been looking around & notice that Olympus have 2 the 80-250 F5 & the 65-200 F4. Does anyone know which of these has the better image quality, or if there is a better zoom lens made by Olympus that I should consider?<br>

I have also seen mention of the Tamron SP 80-200mm F2.8 LD lens. Does anyone know if this is compatible with the OM4ti and if the image quality is better to that of the Olympus lenses?<br>

Thanks in advance<br>

Peter</p>

[SCL]

<p>According to http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylens.jsp, the 65-200 seems to have slightly better overall performance, both wide open and stopped down, than the 80-250, which also has a greater degree of vignetting. I once owned the Tamron you mention, and it was a good lens, but my sample was a little soft. You can read about it here: http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/30A.html. All Tamron Adaptall II lenses can be used on any camera for which there is a proper adapter, which means about 98% of all 35mm cameras manufactured. I routinely use several of their top line (SP models) with my OM2n and Nikons.</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>There is also a Sigma 70-210mm f/2.8 APO lens (I own one) that was made in Olympus OM mount that is very, very good. Quite sharp wide open at all focal lengths and very, very good stopped down. Not a small lens by any stretch of the imagination though.<br>

I can't personally compare the image quality as I have not had the Olympus lenses you mentioned, but it was better quality wide open than my Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/3.5 was wide open and better stopped down as well and the Vivitar lens was pretty good (that used to be my general go to medium telephoto lens to go in my camera bag).</p>

<p>It is not "fit in a shoulder bag" kind of lens though as it is probably about 60% longer than the Vivitar lens was and about 3x the weight. I plan on holding on to the Sigma 70-210/2.8 to use with adapters on my OM-D EM-5 (if it ever gets here, sigh).</p>

[wharridge]

<p>If you decide on the Zuiko 65-200 ensure you check the rear element group carefully for a "haze". Many of these lenses developed this haze which looks uniform over the surface (not like fungus).</p>

<p>...Wayne</p>

 

[petes-photoworld]

<p>Thanks Stephen for the links, although must admit to being blown away by the numbers on the photozone site. Am I right in reading that ratings are in % terms, with the higher value being the better?</p>

<p>Good point Matthew I will need to consider weight as well as image quality.</p>

<p>Thanks Wayne on your point as to haze, which backs ups other comments I have seen when researching this.</p>

<p>Perhaps a prime lens at say 150 or 200mm may be a better idea. I think I am posing more questions than answers.</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>Well, I guess it depends on typical focal lengths you think you might shoot at.</p>

<p>My normal setup was 24, 35, 50, 100 and 135mm primes in my bag with the 100 and 135 sometimes being replace by that 70-210/3.5 vivitar lens. I'd change it a bit more for low light, wide panoramas etc with a Sigma 14/3.5, 28/1.8, Zuiko 85/2 or the Sigma 70-210/2.8 and Sigma 400/5.6 depending on the occasion.<br>

If I was going primes for stuff over 85mm I'd probably get the 135/3.5 or 135/2.8 and 180/2.8 or 200/4 unless space was of large concern, then I'd probably just get the 200/4.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>Please forgive me but your question intrigues me.</p>

<p>How often do you need a telephoto focal length for landscape photography?</p>

<p>Why are you looking for a high-quality telephoto zoom lens instead of a high-quality telephoto prime lens?</p>

<p>Why are you trying to get high-quality landscape images out of a small format camera instead of using a larger format camera?</p>

[petes-photoworld]

<p>Thanks Matthew. I was thinking of the 135 or 180 range if I was to go for a prime.<br>

Hi John, I do not own a large format camera & as noted above I am considering extending my lens range to try and extract out or isolate the important element of a landscape, instead of the panaroma type image.</p>

 

[jim_baker6]

<p>I have the 135mm f3.5, the 135mm f2.8 and the 200mm f4. I used to own a 180mm f2.8, all Olympus primes. My comments: my 135mm f2.8 produces slightly sharper images than the f3.5. The f3.4 improves the more you stop it down. On the other hand, my f2.8 is particularly good at f4. The f3.5 is smaller and lighter in the hand but neither are 'large' or 'heavy'. Chromatic aberration ('colour fringing') is present if you look for it, I get the impression slightly more for the f2.8. That said, both lenses produce fine images. I've taken the f3.5 as part of a 'backpacking kit'. I was very satisfied with it: almost no extra weight and good images. The main thing about the image quality had nothing to do with the lens: it was the haze due to the fact that what I was isolating was far away...but I was trekking in the Andes.<br>

The 200mm f4 is a superb lens, producing shap images at all apertures. There is a little purple fringing in the highlights if you look for it, particularly at f4, but it reduces by f5.6. The 180mm f2.8 is also very sharp but is more prone to purple fringing. It's also quite a bit heavier and more bulky.<br>

To get the best out of these 135-200mm lenses you need a tripod and you need to do something about the mirror: either lock up (e.g. OM 1n) or mirror and aperture prefire (e.g. OM 4, OM 2000). Even with this, you will need to keep the shutter speed fast (1/250th minimum). If a slow shutter speed is used, even with a tripod + the other precautions I mentioned, vibration not the glass will limit the image sharpness. </p>

 

[petes-photoworld]

<p>HI Jim, thanks for your thoughtful insights in particular on the haze aspect as I go trekking typically once a year, and this is the prime reason for researching this type of lens. The weight is another factor as I do also carry a tripod .... so I really need to think of investing in a mule.</p>

<p>In your opinion would you look to take the 135mm rather that the 200mm?</p>

[jim_baker6]

<p>I think you have to think hard about exactly what pictures you are going to take. I can only share with you the reason for taking my 135mm f3.5 when I was trekking last year. My basic kit comprises an Olympus 24mm and 50mm prime, an OM2000 and a flashgun. My style of photography is narrative i.e. I take pictures as I go along that tell the story. Occasionally a great scene presents itself and I briefly turn all Ansel Adams. I take the OM2000 because it has a flash synchronisation speed of 1/125 sec. Contrast is a real (photographic) problem at altitude. Together with the flashgun, which has a GN of 28, I'm just about able to balance flash and ambient i.e. take adequately exposed photos of people + the background <em>during the day</em>. Normally, my 24mm lens is for scenes or for putting people in the scene and my 50mm is for everything else. Last year I was trekking over the Andes with the objective a ridge that afforded an unusual view of Machu Picchu. From the map I knew the distance from the ridge to the ruin and I had an idea of its extent, so I could guess the field-of-view. I figured the 135mm would do the trick. I chose the f3.5 because it's lighter and I bitterly regret carrying any excess weight when I'm struggling for breath half way up a hill-side. In the event either of my 135mm lenses would have been OK because haze was the limiting factor (see below where as much blue as possible has been removed using Photoshop). As a trophy shot it was great. It really puts the ruin in its context. I'm really pleased I took the telephoto but I didn't think the quality of the image was good enough to make an enlargement.<br>

I doubt I'd take a 200mm lens on a trek. I think the kind of scenes it would isolate would likely be too far away to make a really good photo. I use my 200mm for safaris and things like that. <br>

<em> </em></p><div></div>

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

<p>“I own an OM4ti, and currently use both a wide angle 24mm & 35-80 zoom lens for landscape photography. I am considering adding a another lens to compliment these, and thinking of a zoom lens in the 65-250 range.”</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>“I have also seen mention of the Tamron SP 80-200mm F2.8 LD lens. Does anyone know if this is compatible with the OM4ti and if the image quality is better to that of the Olympus lenses?”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I shoot landscapes with a 35mm small format camera, my first choice is to use a 28mm prime lens for panorama type images. Other lenses I may carry include:<br>

18mm f/3.5<br>

50mm f/1.8<br>

105mm f/2.5 or 105mm f/2.8 macro<br>

180mm f/2.8</p>

<p>If I wanted to carry a light photographic load while shooting landscapes, I would carry my Tamron 28-200mm f/3.8 – f/5.6 auto focus. I cannot comment on the Tamron SP 80-200mm F2.8 LD lens but if it were as good as my Tamron 28-200mm, I would not hesitate using it to isolate important elements in a landscape.</p>

<p>If I had the lenses you use for landscape photography (wide angle 24mm & 35-80 zoom lens) and needed to add a longer focal length to capture distant elements in a landscape, I would carry my Vivitar 70-210mm f/3.5 (made by Kiron).</p>

[petes-photoworld]

<p>Hi Jim, thanks for sharing your experience and your trophy shot. Your trekking is far more extreme than mine as I have only trekked the mountains in Torridon Scotland so far. Each time I have tried to reduce the amount of carry weight, even purchasing and trying out a photo vest last year.</p>

<p>The haze is definetely going to be a factor, so may also need to do a bit of research into limiting this as well.</p>

<p>Hi John, thanks also. I am starting to lean towards another prime instead of a zoom but will still give this careful consideration before handing out hard earned cash.</p>

[harold_gough]

<p>The Carl Zeiss Jenazoom II 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 is very sharp and is available in OM mount, sharper than my best Tamron SP Adaptall-2 zooms. The 35-70mm 3.5-4.8 macro model is equallly good.</p>

[rob_h5]

<blockquote>

<p>...and currently use both a wide angle 24mm & 35-80 zoom lens for landscape</p>

<p>The Carl Zeiss Jenazoom II 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 is very sharp and is available in OM mount...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you actually own the RARE <strong>Olympus OM 35-80mm f/2.8 ED zoom</strong> ? If so, you wont get a finer "zoom" lens for landscape from the Olympus OM system.</p>

<p>If you were talking about primes I could give you a whole laundry list of OM primes, my favorite that I have shot with are the OM Zuiko 18/3.5 and OM Zuiko 21/3.5 ultra wide angle lenses. There are also a whole range of OM telephoto primes and a few with ED glass including the OM Zuiko 100/2 ED lens which I have also shot with and is also good for landscapes.</p>

<p>Olympus OM 35-80mm f/2.8 ED zoom lens<br>

<a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/3580mm.htm">http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/3580mm.htm</a></p>

<p>As for zoom lenses outside the OM Zuiko system I have shot with the Carl Zeiss Jenazoom II 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 and it is indeed a very sharp zoom...but no where near an Olympus OM 35-80mm f/2.8 ED. Your other option is the RARE <strong>Angeniuex 35-70mm or 70-210mm in Olympus OM mount</strong>.</p>

[petes-photoworld]

<p>Hi Harold, thanks & will take a look at the Carl Zeiss Jenazoom II 75-300mm f4.5-5.6.</p>

<p>Hi Rob H, yes I managed to find & purchase the Olympus 35-80 2.8 ED lens. I am looking to extend the range beyond this to capture distant elements, hence my question as to what would best to look to get. I am wavering between a prime & a zoom.</p>

<p>I have never heard of the Angeniuex so will take a look at that as well.</p>

[jim_baker6]

<p>Peter: I have walked around in the Ullapool area for many years, not too far from Torridon. Haze in Scotland is much less of a problem that it is at altitude in the Andes. The light in Scotland can be very favourable. I sometimes look in 'Scotland the Wild Places' by Colin Prior to see just how good landscape photos in Scotland can be (although your portfolio currently at the bottom of this page is also a source inspiration). I have also experimented with ways of carrying my camera kit while trekking. I have settled on a small rucksack with a rugged bag-with-belt to hold the kit. The rucksack rests on the bag (actually an obsolete CCS 'Venus' bag) so most of the weight is supported on my hips via the belt. The advantage of this arrangement is that if I want to take a photo, I simply rotate the bag to the front to get my camera. I don't have to take off my rucksack. On long treks, the belt proved to be a little flimsy -it was a simple webbed belt and tended to drag on my hips- so I've just bought a much stiffer belt (similar the the belts used by the UK police) + a cushioning that attaches using velcro tabs. The whole arrangement is much more like a big rucksack with a proper hip support, while retaining the ability to rotate the bag to the front.<br>

</p>

[harold_gough]

<p>I'm not sure but I think Angeniuex is usually associated with Canon.</p>

[petes-photoworld]

<p>Hi Jim, thanks for you kind comment on my shots and I know Ullapool having visited locations around there on my trips up to Torridon. As you say the light can be very favourable, although have on several occasions experienced the other extreme of that rain!</p>

<p>I do aspire to being as good as Colin Prior although no way in that league as yet and still learining. I also hope at some stage, when work allows, to be able to visit the region in winter.</p>

<p>Your set up sounds very interesting. The 1 complaint I have with the photo vest, although very easy to access multi lenses, filters etc, is that it is very front loading so after a while shoulders do start to ache. I also own a Tamrac camera bag but with that you have to take off before being able to get to stuff, sometimes not ideal.</p>

<p>I still think I carry too much and that is why I am very conscious as to the weight of lenses these days.</p>

<p>Hi Harold, thanks for the tip on the Angeniuex.</p>

[harold_gough]

<p>Re: Carrying gear and acessing it:<br>

I have a large Lowepro backpack which holds a huge amount of gear. I tend to use that mostly when I am working from the back of the car. At other times, I try to use one or two shoulder bags, which, usefully, each carry 5-7 kg of hardware and fit the dimensions of airline cabin luggage restrictions. My largest one is 18 x 9 x 8 cm, including side and front pockets. Obviously, the shoulder bags are better for access.</p>

 

[rob_h5]

<p>Peter & Harold please read this thread on 3rd party zooms, I go over in extensive detail about the Angenieux lenses.<br>

3rd Party zoom lenses for Olympus OM<br>

<a href="00Vdw3?start=0">http://www.photo.net/olympus-camera-forum/00Vdw3?start=0</a></p>

<p>Angenieux is not associated with anyone except Angenieux. They are one of the best and oldest European lens manufacturers. <strong>They have made cinema lenses for Hollywood for decades</strong>. <strong>Angenieux is located in France.</strong><br>

In the 1980s they became the only European lens manufacturer to 100% design/manufacture 3rd party lenses for Japanese cameras. Even Zeiss partnered with Sigma & Cosina and Japan to make lenses for Japanese cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I managed to find & purchase the Olympus 35-80 2.8 ED lens. I am looking to extend the range beyond this to capture distant elements...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only zoom lens that could compete with your <strong>Olympus OM Zuiko 35-80 2.8 ED</strong> lens is the <strong>Angenieux 70-210mm f3.5 Macro 1:2.5 zoom</strong> and <strong>Angenieux 35-70mm f2.5-3.3</strong> <strong>zoom</strong> in Olympus OM mount. There is also the Angenieux 180mm APO lens. With the exception of the Olympus OM 35-80mm f2.8 ED zoom lens Olympus only made "average zooms" for the Olympus OM system. Your best bet would be to get a Olympus 2X Teleconverter for your Zuiko Angenieux made these two zooms in following camera mounts:</p>

<p><strong>Angenieux lens camera mounts available</strong><br>

<strong>Canon AF VERY RARE</strong><br>

<strong>Canon FD uncommon but somewhat RARE</strong><br>

<strong>Olympus OM VERY RARE</strong><br>

<strong>Leica uncommon but somewhat RARE</strong><br>

<strong>Minolta</strong><br>

<strong>Nikon AF</strong><br>

Here is French Angenieux brochure from the 1980's.</p>

<div></div>

[petes-photoworld]

<p>Hi Rob, once again thanks for the information and the link to the other thread. I suspect the <strong>Angenieux 70-210mm f3.5 Macro 1:2.5 zoom</strong> is not cheap & difficult to get hold of.</p>

<p>Your best suggestion & I should of thought of earlier is</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your best bet would be to get a Olympus 2X Teleconverter</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I already own this, so will take this on my next trip.</p>

[harold_gough]

<p>You have a choice of two Angenieux 70-210mm f3.5 Macro 1:2.5 zoom on Ebay, if you have $1,500 to spend.</p>

[rob_h5]

<p>Peter, no problem I am glad I was able to help you out with advice. I wish I had better news for you but <strong>Olympus never made a 70-210mm zoom with ED glass for Olympus OM</strong>. They did make a cheapo zoom version with near coke-bottle lens quality but you would be better off with a Vivitar Series 1/Tokina ATX/Tamron 3rd party zoom lens. Even the well respected Olympus OM website below doesnt think too highly of the Olympus OM 70-210mm. Here is what they say:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Overall, although this lense (Olympus OM 70-210mm) may not be the absolute choice for many serious OM users who may have other thought, opinions and/or own preferences but given budget constraints...</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/70210mm.htm">http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/70210mm.htm</a></p>

<p>The Angenieux 70-210mm APO is pricy but if you compare that zoom to the latest Canon or Nikon zoom 70-210mm range with L or ED glass the Angenieux zoom is a bargain.<br>

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680103-USA/Canon_2751B002_EF_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680103-USA/Canon_2751B002_EF_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS.html</a><br>

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/644741-USA/Nikon_2185_AF_S_Nikkor_70_200mm_f_2_8G.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/644741-USA/Nikon_2185_AF_S_Nikkor_70_200mm_f_2_8G.html</a></p>

<p>The bottom line is : as for zooms made by Olympus for Olympus OM your <strong>OM Zuiko 35-80mm ED zoom is as good as it is going to get.</strong></p>

[geoff_stordahl]

<p>I have the 65-200 zoom, and so far I've been pretty impressed with it. As my collection of primes grows I don't use it nearly as often, but for a while it was my "1 lens quiver." It's a bit slow at f/4, but this makes it really easy to truck that bastard around the woods if you plan to do a lot of hiking with it. My copy is fairly soft at all apertures compared to a decent prime, but the pictures are usable, and the color contrast seems fairly good. As others have mentioned, there are better alternatives available, but they're super huge or super heavy or both. The 65-200 on the other hand is small, light, CHEAP, and even has macrofocus. I havn't been terribly impressed with its macrofocus abilities, but this lens has given me the oportunity to try macrofocus out while I'm still in the gestation phaze (the 50/2 is on the long list). Basically, this lens is not a stellar performer in any area, but it is easy to use and versitile, and most importantly, it's the only lens you need to carry in the woods (maybe along with the 50/1.8 if you need some low light ability). </p>