simon evans.

<p>Chris, you should be able to find the 50/3.5 for quite a bit less than the prices you've mentioned. Whenever I've looked I see them going for around £50-60 in excellent condition. The Sigma might be very good but you can be sure the Zuiko is an excellent lens and superb value.</p>

<p>Have been using a Stylus Epic / mju-II for some time now.</p>

<p>I confess it has taken a bit of a back seat with the arrival of a DSLR. But it's great fun, I've taken lots of photos, mostly b&w, when I couldn't or wouldn't take a bigger camera.</p>

<p>I think it had some barrel distortion at the wide end, but from what I recall of the OM Mailing List users felt its performance was decent to good for a compact zoom lens of the time.<br>

If you can pick one in nice condition and don't pay over the odds you could probably get your money back if you don't like it.</p>

<blockquote>They came up with a great idea in terms of the FP setting on the F280 flash, but then never bothered to develop a bracket or grip that would allow the flash to be used off-camera.</blockquote>

<p>The <a href="http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif/flashphotogroup/ttl_auto_cord_f.htm">TTL Auto Cord F 0.6</a> is designed solely for off-camera use with the F-280. The cord is not compatible with T-series units. It can therefore be used on any bracket with a shoe.</p>

<p>Anyone wanting to use any film-era Zuikos on the E-P1 would do well to visit <a href="http://www.biofos.com/cornucop/omz_ep1.html">this page</a> .</p>

<p>Another illustrated story about the Pen range and Maitani:</p>

<p>http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/09/the-olympus-pen.html</p>

 

<p>Google is your friend.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.derrybryson.com/manuals/Olympus/35%20MM%20CAMERAS/Stylus%20instruction%20manual.pdf">http://www.derrybryson.com/manuals/Olympus/35%20MM%20CAMERAS/Stylus%20instruction%20manual.pdf</a></p>

<p>Jon Nicholson has covered Formula 1 for years, originally with Olympus OM and more recently using E-series cameras.<br>

http://jonnicholson.co.uk/<br>

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/10332/olympus_nicholson_ferrari/</p>

<p>But in the end, does it matter? As long as <em>you </em> like your camera and lens setup why should you care?</p>

<p>Compact, great handling, rugged pro-spec 35mm SLR with superlative metering system. Great lenses (especially the primes) and system accessories. If you're like most of the people on this forum once you use it you'll probably love it.</p>

<p>http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif.htm</p>

<p>Darin,</p>

<p>If you like OMs with their distinctive handling (you either love it or you can't stand it) then don't fret about the glass. The system has been used by countless photographers, professional and amateur over the years. I know of full-time stock, motorsport, national newspaper, celebrity/portrait/wedding/studio, coffee table book and even war photographers that worked with them for years. Some still do. Douglas Dubler wrote <a href="http://www.phototechmag.com/previous-articles/jul-dubler99.htm">a flattering article</a> for Photo Techniques when the system was at its peak.</p>

<p>I like the 65-200mm and have the 35-105mm too but use them rarely. The prime lenses are where it's at. Some people reckon the faster version at each focal length was the 'pro' spec lens, but the humbler versions rarely disappoint. Try not to get caught up in the SC v MC (single v multicoating) red herring. Most of my favourite photos have been taken with a well-worn 35mm f2.8 lens or the bargain basement 50mm f1.8. Lots of info here:</p>

<p>http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/index.htm</p>

<p>Trying to detect the difference between brands is probably impossible and a complete waste of time and film. You know the old saying about bad workman and his tools?</p>

<p>Just use them and enjoy them, and tell us about it.</p>

<p>Should have googled it before posting. The answer appears to be in this PDF:</p>

<p>http://olympus.dementia.org/Hardware/PDFs/OMTamronMount.pdf</p>

<p><em>Mounting third party lenses on an OM4 or OM3 can shear off the spot meter reset post on the camera's mount.</em><br>

There is a risk of this but it is only with older versions of the Adaptall-II OM adapter and I haven't heard of this happening to anyone I know.<br>

IIRC (and don't quote me) but later versions, with different screw head positions, are OK. You can check whether the sunken screw is aligned with the OM-4's reset pin when fitted by holding it up to the camera, and if it does then one suggested solution is to drop a blob of epoxy resin in the offending orifice to make it flush with the rest of the face.</p>

<p>Any 2x converter, whether 4- or 7-element, is only intended to work with 50mm or longer lenses, preferably longer. IMHO you'd be wasting money that would be better put towards the 100mm. Closest focus on the 100mm is 1 metre so magnification is almost as good as the 50mm. There really aren't any shortcuts to getting decent kit.</p>

<p>14mm extension tube on 50mm will get you to between 1/3 and 1/4 life size, 25mm around 1/2 life size. Chart <a href="http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif/macrophotogroup/auto_extension_tubes.htm">here</a></p>

<p>I don't like to sound like a salesman but, having tried ext.tubes, I prefer using a high quality converter on an 85 or 135mm lens (formerly with the 100mm). It's less fiddly to use, you won't need any exposure modification, there's no loss of viewfinder brightness and it's the size of a polarising filter.</p>

<p>One thing I didn't mention is that if you're accustomed to (and like) Zuikos, especially the primes, then you'll never be 100% happy with any third party lens.<br>

And the final paragraph (what happened to the breaks?) should begin "Have you considered a high quality 2-element..."</p>

<p>Chris, if you can't flush out a clean 100/2.8 within your budget on eBay I'd be suprised. Prices vary, I've seen them go for less than 50 quid and more than 120 but typically 60-85. Set up a search that will email you when they are listed so you can swoop first on a BIN. It's a great lens, I wish I hadn't sold mine (and that's from an 85/2 owner!). If you can afford to be patient you could restrict your eBay search to driveable distances and wait for something to come up that you could check out before you spend.<br>

Most of my favourite portraits have been done with the 50mm, though this might be because I prefer shooting waist-up instead of headshots. My favourite portrait photographer, Jane Bown, has used an OM-1, 85/2 and Tri-X almost exclusively since the 1970s to great effect.<br>

I'd suggest you go to eBay or pay the premium at somewhere like Ffordes or MXV, who have 12 month warranty. I'm sure KEH are fine but you'll have import duty and extra hassle returning anything. And the exchange rate is not good for buying from the USA at the moment.<br>

a high quality 2-element converter for close-up work? Olympus made them as part of <a href="http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~rwesson/esif/om-sif/is-series/is-series.htm#iS/L_Macro_Converters">the iS-system</a> with OM-compatible 49mm and 55mm filter thread fittings. I have both sizes (in fact I have a second example of the 55m fit one) and they seem extremely good. Although I have the Zuiko 50/3.5 the only close-up work I do is flowers and I prefer working with a longer lens (135 or 65-200mm) and the converter.</p><div></div>

<p>Some or all of these photos were taken with a borrowed Zuiko 24mm.<br>

http://www.pbase.com/tom_77/shiroka<br>

I took an OM-2n with 24mm and 50mm Zuikos to <a href="http://www.simonevans.co.uk/dublin.htm">Dublin</a> (Ireland) for 3 days with some HP5 Plus and an orange filter. Loved the minimalist kit, though could have used the 100mm a couple of times. Sorry the jpegs aren't any bigger. I also enjoy using the 24mm with <a href="http://www.simonevans.co.uk/sfx200.htm">SFX200</a> infrared film and a 25a red filter.</p>

<p>That's a nice lens. Maybe not stellar but no slouch either. Some earlier discussions:<br>

http://www.photo.net/olympus-camera-forum/00SHl1<br>

http://www.photo.net/olympus-camera-forum/006UQk<br>

http://www.photo.net/olympus-camera-forum/00SwFB</p>

<p>The OM 24/2.8 did very well in a UK camera mag test I recall in the early 80s. Only Nikkor and one other scored as highly.<br>

A friend of mine uses his 24/2.8 a great deal and says it is comparable with his 21/3.5 (he really likes both BTW). I think the importance of multicoating is exaggerated. I like my SC example, but then I also like the MC 28/2.8 I now use, and can't be bothered testing them - life's too short and film's not as cheap as it was.<br>

As Skip says, the 24/2 has a reputation for waveform distortion. It is naturally larger and heavier (with 55mm filter ring), though Olympus still managed to make it comparatively small and light for its class. I don't recall any tests or user reports stating that it performs any better than its slower stablemate.</p>

<p>Lots of info here: http://www.photo.net/olympus/mjuII</p>

<p>You could consider fitting a 49mm close-up lens to the 50 or 100mm (e.g. the iS-series A-macro 2 element unit) for close-ups or pick up a Zuiko 50/3.5 macro, they go for peanuts these days.<br /> <br /> I would also suggest 24 (or 28), 50 and 100mm would cover most subjects, though I'd feel a bit bereft without my faithful 35mm Zuiko. As Patrick states, if you chose all Zuikos then they would also all have a 49mm front filter thread. I use the 28mm rubber hood on both the 24 and 28 while the hood for the 40/2, 85/2 and 100/2.8 is great for the 50mm and longer lenses.</p><div></div>

<p>I'd be inclined to get a 35/2 for now, they are widely available. It's a good lens and, as you have used one, you will know what you're getting. My favourite lens is an old, well-worn single coated 35/2.8. It's about the same size and weight as the 50/1.8 and 24/2.8, and has the same 49mm filter thread.<br /> <br /> If at some point you find a 40/2 at a reasonable price then you can buy it, try it, and if you don't like it sell it again.</p>

<p>If the 24mm isn't above typical secondhand prices you could try it and sell it on if it doesn't match your expectations. Mint or otherwise, they're often available for considerably less than $150. If that lens+adapter <em>really</em> a similar price to a new 14-54mm then I'd pass.<br>

OM/Four-Thirds fan John Foster has a page showing examples and his opinion of various OM lenses used with the E-1 <a href="http://www.biofos.com/cornucop/omz_e1.html">here</a> (lots of images on this page).<br>

If you're shooting exclusively on Four-Thirds I don't understand why you're considering OM lenses (unless they're dirt cheap or focal lengths not well covered by 4/3 items). Unless you're a prime lens or low light afficiando I'm not sure where the benefit lies.</p>

<p><em>"Also maybe I'll keep searching for one of those high serial number 50/1.4s without the MC on the front and get one some day to try out against the lower serial number MC lens."</em> <br /> <br /> Nah, just concentrate on taking photos that please you. It's much more fun. The G-Zuiko SC lens isn't especially good wide open, but all the later ones are excellent.</p>

Further to my post above, it has only now come to my attention that Kodak have released (re-released?) <a

http="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/ektar/qAndA.jhtml">Ektar 100</a> in 35mm.

To Geoffrey R Jackson: I'd recommend Kodak Portra 160 films - NC for low saturation, VC for more punch in the colours. I don't use anything else for prints, they have superb skin tones and plenty of latitude.