geoff_stordahl

<p>Keep in mind with the 85 that it has a mechanism that induces "symmetrical coma" at f/2 and f/4, which you can see with most of the boring lens tests that people have performed on this lens. So, to achieve that classic portraiture feel of a sharp subject shoot it at f/2.8 or f/5.6, and f/2-f/4 to get the "glowy" look to your portrait. Theoretically, at 2 and 4 you still have all the resolution, but you've lost acutance, although shooting at anything but a face it'll probably just look soft. If mine ever needs service, I'm going to look into having the coma-gizmo removed as I seldom shoot portraits. I'm right there with you with the focal length, if anything I'd want to go a little wider than 85, with 100 just being flat too tight. If only there was a zuiko 70mm... By the way, I've been experimenting with extension tubes, and 7mm or 12mm seems to be plenty to compensate for the lack-luster MFD, I'll have to wait for spring to really test it out though. </p>

<p>You might consider the zuiko 28/3.5, which is both very cheap and reputed to be very very sharp, rivaling the monster 28/2. It's a single coated lens, so this may be a problem, but it's pretty close to your ideal 35mm focal length and it should out-resolve any of the zuiko 35's, which are nice lenses, but they're not known for their resolution. For less than $100 off fleabay, it might be worth a shot. There's also a multi-coated 2.8 (which is reputed to be slightly less sharp), and my all-time favorite zuiko, the f/2, which goes for 3-400, but its worth it IMO. </p>

<p>You might consider the zuiko 28/3.5, which is both very cheap and reputed to be very very sharp, rivaling the monster 28/2. It's a single coated lens, so this may be a problem, but it's pretty close to your ideal 35mm focal length and it should out-resolve any of the zuiko 35's, which are nice lenses, but they're not known for their resolution. For less than $100 off fleabay, it might be worth a shot. There's also a multi-coated 2.8 (which is reputed to be slightly less sharp), and my all-time favorite zuiko, the f/2, which goes for 3-400, but its worth it IMO. </p>

<p>Thank you all so much for your advice! You guys are the best!</p>

<p>Sorry guys, I know there are several threads about this, but none seem to answer this specific question. I recently picked up an om-1n whose light meter does not agree with my other freshly calibrated om-1. They're not off by much, less than a stop, but it makes me wonder if the new body has been modified to 1.5V, especially because the meter is off by about as much as I would expect a 1.5V meter to be off running the correct 1.3V cell (I have an mr-9 adapter). I can easily adjust for the error, but my concern is more that I don't want to damage the circuitry by running the incorrect voltage. These are 40 year old cameras after all, so I try to baby them as much as I can. Does anybody know if there's a way to check whether or not the camera has been modified? I do not know the previous owner, and the retailer did not save any information on the body, so all I have to go on is the body itself. Many thanks</p>

<p>You might try emailing Dan over at KEH. I think they have waaay more stock than they can list on the site, and if you asked him he might be able to find one for you, or at least notify you if they come accross one. He did something similar for me with a pedestrian little 85/2, so if you want to plunk down 5 grand or whatever it is they go for nowadays, I imagine they'd be happy to bend over backwards for you.</p>

<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>