Help with OM film cameras and lenses

[andrew_viny]

<p>Hey guys! <br /><br />I'm looking for a little wisdom about which OM body and which OM lenses are the best ones to pick up.</p>

<p>BODIES<br>

I understand the OM-1 is fully mechanical and thus that is my inclination.<br>

I have heard the OM-2 is more reliable which seems to defy logic.</p>

<p>As far as common problems, I've seen mentions of: <br />Black spots on the mirror - Are these likely just deteriorating foam? Can they be cleaned?<br>

Are there any other major problems to be aware of or stay away from? </p>

<p>LENSES<br>

All of the bodies seem to be paired with the 50 f/1.8 but it seems like there are a number of lens options. Any recommendations as to which ones are must haves and which ones are to be avoided?</p>

[SCL]

<p>As far as the lenses go, you ned to figure out what focal length is important to you and what your budget is...then you can determine which lenses in the lineup best meet your needs - there are no "must haves" - and the link you were sent to mir.com will give you plenty of comparative data among the lineup, although it is not a complete listing of OM lenses. Electronics can always be a problem, but so can pure mechanical systems....remember you are talking about cameras which are at least 20-40 years old - so normal processes in selecting an older camera apply, likewise if you aren't buying directly from a dealer with whom you can negotiate and secure a warranty, you need to do due diligence on your seller and look for return privileges if the camera isn't as described. Black spots on the mirrors of any slr could be a function of a number of issues...so select a camera which doesn't have any, just that simple. As far as deteriorating foam in older cameras, I always make the assumption that at least seals and probably foammirror bumpers may need to be replaced, whether it is a Leica, Contax, Pentax, Minolta, Nikon or Canon - foam deterioriation comes with the territory of buying older bodies....the replacement job, while tedious, isn't usually very hard nor expensive if you are comfortable doing it yourself...Jon Goodman sells excellent kits for a reasonable sum, or you can go onto You-Tube and see techniques and materials others have successfully used.</p>

[david_carroll4]

<p>The OM-1/n is a great camera of you're inclined toward all-mechanical manual. However, I would strong consider having it CLA'd though Camtech. Not only will this sort out the usual CLA-ing, but the standard Camtech OM-1 CLA also rewires the camera to run accurately on a modern silver cell (the OM-1 uses an obsolete and non-available mercury cell). In addition, Camtech will remove the black foam in the pentaprism housing. As this foam inevitably deteriorates, it degrades the pentaprism silvering, resulting in irreparable black spots in the viewfinder. Unlike most cameras, the foam mirror bumpers on the OMs are small pieces that cushion the front corners of the mirror. As such, OMs are, if anything, less prone to deteriorating bumper foam staining the mirror. I think you're talking about pentaprism foam, which is apparently a problem for aging OMs<br>

I've used a number of OMs over the years, and my thoughts are as follows:<br>

OM-1/n - great, with a CLA - almost a perfect compact bare-bones manual camera - viewfinder is unparallelled<br>

OM2/n - Similar to the OM-1. Very reliable, although the one I had just stopped working one day. A $150 CLA got it back, but I'm not convinced that they're as reliable as legend would have it. YMMV.<br>

OM2SP - eats batteries - sort of an OM-4 lite - avoid<br>

OM-4/T - if not the best manual focus 35mm SLR ever, then certainly on the podium. VF not quite up to that of the OM-1/2, but still very good. Weatherproofed, and a phenomenal and unique multispot metering system. Get the OM-4T, which avoids the battery-eating circuitry of the OM-2SP and the early OM-4. I had an OM-4T for ~20 years, and it never failed. <br>

OM-3/T - If you like manual mechanical, this will knock your socks off - the compactness of the OM-1, the weatherproofing and metering of the OM-4, combined with a 1-1/2000 sec mechanical shutter.<br>

Lenses:<br>

28/2.8 - sharp and small<br>

35/2.8 also very good - often my standard lens<br>

50/1.4. I have an older "silvernose" version - supposedly single coated and not as bitingly sharp as later versions, but I found it to be great for my purposes (B/W). Apparently the f/1.4 with serial#s >1,000,000 are the ones to get<br>

85/2.0 - perfect - I had a silvernose version<br>

100/2.8 - also great - just not quite as great as the 85<br>

200/4.0 - excellent - hard to go wrong with a 200<br>

35-70/3.6 - a beautiful lens, in terms of construction and image quality, but a little outmatched these days for range and max aperture. <br>

75-150/4.0 - good lens, but suffers the same problems as the 35-70</p>

 

[Aoresteen]

<p>I bought my first OM-1 in 1976. I have 7 OM-1/OM-2 bodies all serviced by Camtech (www. zuiko.com). They are equally reliable. Both will need service at some point. I tend to take an OM-1 body when I'm shooting B&W film manually advancing the film. When I use a motor drive or a winder I tend to take an OM-2.<br>

I have 24 OM lenses and they are as good as any made. The 50mm f/1.8 "Made in Japan" is an outstanding lens. The 21mm f/3.5 is one of my favorites. The 85mm is at the top of the class. A real sleeper is the 200mm f/5. I must have an exceptional copy as it gets a lot of bad press but my pictures say otherwise. I tend to use it only in good light at around f/11 or f/8.<br>

<br />The ORIGINAL line of Vivitar Series 1 lenses are extremely good. I have the 28mm f/1.9, the 70-210 f/2.8-3.5, & the 28-90mm. I'm still in the hunt for the 90mm macro.<br>

<br />I would stick with the OM-1 & OM-2. They are solid cameras and are cheap today. But they will need service and John at zukio.com is the place to send them. Understand that there is a 10 week backlog as John now works part-time servicing OM cameras. He has an OM-1 body and a Motor Drive 2 & control pack of mine waiting for service. Well worth the wait.<br>

<br />Get two bodies so you always have a back up. At today's prices there is no reason not to have a spare.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Great if you can find the Zuiko 35mm f/2. Wonderful lens. The Zuiko 35-70 f/3.6 zoom is also very nice if you like the "super normal" range (I do). The Zuiko 65-200mm f/4 is a truly excellent zoom. However, they are known to get haze inside the rear element that takes disassembly to clean. Check with the seller before buying. If it hasn't gotten hazy by now you are most likely OK.<br>

You might find a couple of my previous posts of interest <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00XwuB">HERE</a> and <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00YqKX">HERE</a></p>

 

[nick_baker]

<p>I used an OM-2 body for nearly 30 years (1978-2007). I've also used OM-1, OM-2sp and OM-4. To me the OM-1 I tried seemed a bit better than the others (nice shutter) but perhaps that camera had simply been better treated. The OM camera and lens system was very compact and had some nice design features, but this was also its weakness. The bodies are not as robust as some larger models of other brands. The telephoto lenses in particular are a little slow presumably to save weight. There used to be an online compendium of OM lens tests that was very helpful, but I don't think it is still available. Don't flame me but in my opinion most of the Zuiko lenses are nothing special by modern standards. The best are the later models, 28/2, 50/2 macro, 90/2 macro, 100/2, 180/2.8 and reportedly 250/2 although I have never used this large expensive pro lens. These models will also be the most expensive used. None of the Zuiko zooms seem particularly good except the 35-80/2.8 has a good reputation. The best telephoto zoom for OM cameras is the Tamron SP 80-200/2.8 Adaptall 2. Most of the other OM Zuiko lenses must be very cheap by now. </p>

[david_carroll4]

<p>Interestingly, Zuiko primes in particular hold their value pretty well on The Auction Site - on a par with equivalent Nikkors (the notable exception, in my experience, being the ubiquitous 50/1.8), and, in the case of the f/2.0 teles and wideangles and the 180/2.8, exceeding Nikkors. I don't know if this a result of relative rarity or somewhat of a cult following for Zuiko primes. Are the OMs less robust than other pro marques? I think the compactness of the system can give the <em>impression</em> that they are less robust than other larger (key word here) models. I don't know if I'd hammer nails with them, like I'm supposed to be able to do with pro monoliths like the F or F-1, and I'm OK with that. As cameras though, I have always found them to be more than robust enough for enthusiastic non-professional use. My OM-1n, bought used, served me well for ~30 years, my OM-4T for over 20 years without a hiccup. We frequently equate strength with bulk, and no more so than in cameras and lenses.</p>

[nick_baker]

<p>the better OM lenses I mentioned hold their value better, of course. I am not sure whether a random legacy lens, 28/2.8 say, would be cheaper from Zuiko or from Nikon, if you say so I have no reason to question it. Regarding longevity, sure, I used an OM2 for my amateur photography for nearly 30 years with little problem, but did eventually bend the mount ring on two bodies, probably with the aforementioned Tamron 80-200/2.8. I suspect the OM's may be less than robust with such a big, heavy lens than some other brands. OM never really captured the pro market, did they? Galen Rowell was famously lightweight with camera gear, but preferred more robust Nikon bodies over OM for (perceived?) reliability in the field. I suspect this may also be why Zuiko added bigger, faster lenses over time (f2 series), pros are prepared to carry what it takes.</p>

[harold_gough]

<p>I started with an OM2n but moved to the OM4, which I liked so much I bought a second one. The spot-meter is the winning feature.<br>

The best lens will vary between photographers and applications. I still have the 50mm 1.8 (came with the 2n) in its box. I used (film) mostly Tamron SP Adaptall-2 series lenses, except for the OM specialist lenses such as the macro ones and the shift ones.<br>

The particular OM system feature I liked most was the dedicated TTL flash system, of which I have from the ring flashes, through T32 and T20 (several of each) to the T45.</p>

 

[bebu_lamar]

<p>If you need the meter then don't pick the OM-1. It uses mercury battery which is no longer available. Hearing aid batteries and Wein cells and adapters are available but I think they are not worth the trouble. The OM-2 uses silver oxide batteries and it should be good.<br>

OM-3 and OM-4 are great cameras but they are expensive. The OM-3 if you can find one would be the most expensive. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>70-210 f/2.8-3.5, & the 28-90mm</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The original series 1s were the 70-210 f3.5 macro zoom and 35-85 f2.8 varifocal.</p>

[erik_danielsson]

<p><strong>Body:</strong><br>

I recommend the <strong>OM-1n</strong> and <strong>OM-2n</strong>. Always go for the (n)-versions. They are much better built.</p>

<p><strong>Lens:</strong> <br>

My favorite is the <strong>Zuiko 28mm f/2.</strong><br />Very sharp. Nice bokeh. Good color rendition, but with some chromatic aberration. Super compact lens. Also works very nice with digital cameras as Canon 5D mk II etc. <br>

<br /><strong>I also have:</strong><br>

18mm f/3.5 - Super compact. No distortion! Sharpness is ok. Rare and pricey!<br>

21mm f/2 - Compact. Nice bokeh. Sharp! Pricey! <br>

21mm f/3.5 - Super compact!! Very sharp. <br>

28mm f/3.5 - Super compact!! Very sharp. Nice price tag.<br>

35mm f/2 - Don't like it as much as the 28mm f/2. It's a bit soft and a bit boring. Compact.<br>

35mm f/2.8. Quite sharp and quite compact. Ok lens.<br>

50mm f/1.4 Nice bokeh, but not sharp. Very soft wide open..<br>

50mm f/1.8 (Made in Japan). Very sharp. A better choice than the f/1.4. Best bang for bucks.<br>

50mm f/3.5 Macro lense. I don''t use it that much. But it seems very popular.<br>

85mm f/1.8. A bit soft wide open, but I love the bokeh plus it's really compact.<br>

100mm f/2.8 Ok lens. Sharp but boring.<br>

135mm f/3.5 A super boring lens. Don't buy it.</p>

<p> </p>

[erik_danielsson]

<p>Wow! Yoshihisa Maitani invented pretty much all of my favorite cameras, the Pen F, the OM-1/2, the XA and the Stylus / Mju. Incredible.</p>