ted_rees

I have both the 35-70, f3.6, and the 35-105 Zuiko zooms.

 

The 35-70, f3.6. A superb lens, both as regards build and optical quality. One of the top two zooms ever produced by Olympus, only bettered by the extremely expensive 35-80, f2.8. It might be considered a bit on the heavier side by some but remember that this is a real "professional" quality lens. Make sure that you get the correct hood for this lens, (not the one for the f4 lens).

 

The 35-105. A relative newcomer to my "stable" but so far, very promising. Perhaps, IMHO, it does not quite have the optical quality of the 35-70, f3.6, but it does have a very handy wider zoom range and the macro facility. Once again, excellent build quality.

 

Whichever you may chose, Jenny, feel satisfied that you will have a typical Zuiko quality lens.

Not much of a problem here as regards first choice - the 35-70, f3.6 zoom lens, superb build and excellent optical quality, equal to most to prime lenses. It is sometimes hard to believe that this is a zoom lens!

 

Second, the 24mm, f 2.8 wide lens . A "gem" of a little lens with superb resolution and contrast.

 

Third, the 28mm f2.8 lens, almost equal to the 24 mm lens.

 

Finally, (and this may surprise many) , the 135, f3.5 medium telephoto. I am always amazed at the quality of the photos produced by this modest little lens.

 

Need I add that all the above lenses are OM Zuiko lenses!

I once owned the Zuiko 35-70 f4 and always thought it was a very good lens. Then I purchased the 35-70 f3.6 version which I can only describe as superb ! As many lens "experts" have commented, at between f8-11, this zoom is equal to many of the top prime lenses. A beautifully constructed lens. Make sure that you get the correct lens hood for this f3.6 zoom,(not the f4 version!).

 

The 70-150 zoom I once owned was rather disappointing, being sharp at the centre but rather weak at the edges.

Patrick's very high praise for the Zuiko 35-70 f3.5-4.5 zoom lens was interesting. Has he, or any other member,used the Zuiko 35-70, f3.6 zoom? My results with this lens have been extremely pleasing.It has been suggested that this was the second best zoom that Olympus ever produced, second only to the legendary (and very expensive!) Zuiko 35-80, f2.8 zoom.

 

Let us hope that this will help to knock on the head the sweaping claim made by some that Olympus zooms were not quite up to standard! Long live the Zuikos!

Slight correction to the above - it should read "some grain evident in A4 prints", not "16x20"!

I fully agree with Tim when he praises the Tamron 500 Mirror lens. I once owned a Zuiko 500 Mirror lens and was never really happy with the images it produced.

 

During the past winter, I have adopted a very casual, non professional approach to my "nature photography", using the Tamron 500 mirror. I attach the lens to my beloved OM4 and slide in a Fuji 1600 ASA film. Then, me and my old Jack Russell terrier set off on our morning "nature ramble".

 

The results? The photos may not appear in "National Geographic" but they more than satisfy me as an average, non publishing, amateur. The 1600 ASA film inevitably means that there is some grain evident in 16x20 prints but it is not excessive. (Modern fast films have made massive advances in recent years!)

 

During the winter evenings, I have looked at the resulting photos -"eyeball to eyeball" shots of robins, blue tits, blackbirds etc, which usually fill at least half the frame. Surprisingly sharp! With the 1600 ASA film, there was no need to lug around a tripod - the average shutter speed was approx 1/550-700.

 

The Tamron 500 mirror lens is essentially a "fun lens" which can still give you extremely pleasing results. Long live the simple "fun" in photography!

Be careful! I once used an animal call and a passing fox began to make serious amorous advances! Just joking.

I have the Sigma 24mm f2.8 lens refered to above. A very good lens BUT it simply cannot compare with the superb Zuiko 24mm f2.8 SC which I also have. Results suggest that the Sigma lens has more distortion problems than the Olympus version. My Zuiko 28mm f2.8 has proved to be an excellent lens but I cannot compare it with the Tamron or Sigma lenses.

 

As far as the much maligned Sigma zooms are concerned, I can only speak from personal experience. I have used the Sigma 70-210 UC APO zoom for many years and have found the results to be EXCELLENT!! I can honestly say that this is one lens I will never part with!

As a very new member member, I apologise in advance if I have broken the rules by inviting responses on this Olympus forum regarding a Sigma lens, even if it was used on an Olympus camera !!

Thanks to the members of this Forum who attacked the claims by one member regarding the "rarity" of this zoom lens. They brought a welcome streak of "sanity" to this particular discussion.

 

However, I personally cannot agree with the claim that this zoom is an "excellent lens". The example which I once owned (and which I quickly sold) suffered from serious chromatic aberration and generally poor resolution.I will accept that this may have been a below average sample.

 

The lens which replaced this Olympus zoom was - wait for it!! - a Sigma 70-210 UC Apo lens.I can only describe this humble lens in one word - excellent!! I would appreciate the comments of other members regarding this Sigma lens, if they have used it.