Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > SLRs - the unRF

SLRs - the unRF For those of you who must talk about SLRs, if only to confirm they are not RF.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Longer lenses in OM mount
Old 11-30-2014   #1
ped
Small brown dog
 
ped's Avatar
 
ped is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: England
Posts: 945
Longer lenses in OM mount

I'm really enjoying my OM1 and currently have a 28 f2.8 and a 50 f1.2

I'd rather like something in the 135-200mm range and have seen a 200 f2.8 and 135 2.8 near me going at reasonable prices.

I suppose if I'm going 'long' then the 200 seems sensible but I'm not clear on how well regarded the various long lenses are despite being fairly clued up in anything less than 100mm

Any suggestions? Price is a factor but I'm willing to pay more if there's a 'best' which is a little more
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2014   #2
pagpow
Registered User
 
pagpow is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 992
ped,

You might find Gary Reese's OM lens tests useful

http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?op...d=45&Itemid=97

Giorgio
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2014   #3
rodt16s
Registered User
 
rodt16s is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Wiltshire UK
Posts: 641
The 180/2.8 served me well for many years..
Still have some pics on the wall taken with it..
They seem to be reasonably priced these days.
Never got on with the 135/2.8
__________________
M's, & OM's
Just taking pics of stuff.
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2014   #4
ped
Small brown dog
 
ped's Avatar
 
ped is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: England
Posts: 945
Thanks guys

Yes I meant to say 180mm rather than 200 in my first post.

How does the 135 macro compare the the 2.8? What didn't you like about it?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2014   #5
TXForester
Registered User
 
TXForester's Avatar
 
TXForester is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alba, Texas
Posts: 1,243
If you don't mind third party zooms, then the Vivitar 70-210mm f3.5 is nice. I've had mine for 30 years and sometimes use it on a digital camera too.
__________________
Bender: I support and oppose many things, but not strongly enough to pick up a pen.

Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey-cage. ― H.L. Mencken
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2014   #6
DCB
Registered User
 
DCB's Avatar
 
DCB is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 244
I had a 200 4.0 and it was a great lens. Nice character shot wide open.

Peace
__________________
DCB <><
Leica M4-P
Nikon FE
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2014   #7
rodt16s
Registered User
 
rodt16s is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Wiltshire UK
Posts: 641
Thought the 135 macro was for the bellows system.
I just never bonded with the 135 focal length
Favouring the 100/2 and 180
__________________
M's, & OM's
Just taking pics of stuff.
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2014   #8
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
 
KoNickon is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Age: 61
Posts: 3,107
The 200/5 (not a misprint) is a very good lens also, and lightweight.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2014   #9
mjc
Registered User
 
mjc is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 244
Hi,
Mir.com.my is a good resource for researching OM lenses.

A link for the 180mm

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...mls/180mm1.htm

Best, m
  Reply With Quote

A caution on the Vivitar 70-210.....
Old 11-30-2014   #10
kuzano
Registered User
 
kuzano is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,953
A caution on the Vivitar 70-210.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by TXForester View Post
If you don't mind third party zooms, then the Vivitar 70-210mm f3.5 is nice. I've had mine for 30 years and sometimes use it on a digital camera too.
Vivitar used at least a half dozen manufacturers to fill the specs of the 70-210. The best 3 were, as I recall, Kiron, Tokina, and Cosina.

Here is a Robertstech breakdown on the many flavors of the 70-210 lenses and how to read the serial number to determine mfr. I had 3 of the Kirons and a Tokina. Check the SN identify table well down on this page:

http://www.robertstech.com/vivitar.htm

I used my Kirons and tokina for great results. I also have used them on my PEN m4/3 camera's with adaptors.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2014   #11
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,258
I have an OM Zuiko 180mm f2.8. It's a great lens.
I compared side by side on the 5Dii against the Zeiss Contax 180mm f2.8 Sonnar.
Very little to differentiate between my two copies of these lenses.
The OM has a bit less sharpness at Wide open. The Contax has a bit more CA.

I also have the Angeniuex f3.5/70-210. It's a Killer 2 ring zoom. One of my best lenses.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2014   #12
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is online now
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 8,961
Olympus made an excellent 65-200 mm f4 zoom, which I have. All of them suffered from a problem that caused lubricants in the lens to release vapors that destroyed one of the lens elements by etching the surface. Mine is destroyed like that, as is every single one I have ever seen. John Hermanson, the OM repair guru and former Olympus service manager, says no repair parts are available; the lenses are all useless paperweights. Damned shame; it was a very good lens. I shot this with it when I was 15 years old, 24 years ago.

  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2014   #13
Shac
Registered User
 
Shac is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: White Rock, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by pagpow View Post
ped,

You might find Gary Reese's OM lens tests useful

http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?op...d=45&Itemid=97

Giorgio
No offense intended, but unless he tested more than one example don't take these as totally accurate - I say that b/c his results for the single coated 100/2.8 and the sc 135/3.5 don't agree w my experience with Nex and A7 bodies. My single examples are v. Good. The 135/3.5 is ridiculously cheap and compact (as konikon stated). Same for the 200/5. Just my 10 worth
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2014   #14
dtcls100
Registered User
 
dtcls100 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shac View Post
No offense intended, but unless he tested more than one example don't take these as totally accurate - I say that b/c his results for the single coated 100/2.8 and the sc 135/3.5 don't agree w my experience with Nex and A7 bodies. My single examples are v. Good. The 135/3.5 is ridiculously cheap and compact (as konikon stated). Same for the 200/5. Just my 10 worth
Agreed. The reliability of Gary's tests unfortunately is further undermined by the considerable variation in test results using the same lenses on differnt bodies. Looking at his test results, I am convinced that some of his bodies were simply out of spec, so that his test results merely measure how well the lenses performed on his camera body. My personal experience is that having a body overhauled and mirror angle checked and adjusted can favorably affect lens performance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2014   #15
dtcls100
Registered User
 
dtcls100 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 456
Btw, having owned the first (Kiron) and third (Komine) versions of the famous Vivitar series 1 70-210 zooms, i can say both are good lenses overall. However the Tamron SP 80-200 f2.8 (I have 2 of these) is noticeably superior, particularly on the long end, with better sharpness and bokeh. The ED glass may have something to do with it and the much brighter and constant f2.8 aperture makes critical focusing much easier. It is quite sharp wide open when used with proper technique. The Tamron is much less common, more expensive, heavier, and doesn't have a macro feature like the Series 1 zooms, but it does use adaptall 2 mounts so that you can use the lens perfectly with most camera brands. I consider this lens the best lens in its range available for the OM mount.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2014   #16
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
Olympus made an excellent 65-200 mm f4 zoom, which I have. All of them suffered from a problem that caused lubricants in the lens to release vapors that destroyed one of the lens elements by etching the surface. Mine is destroyed like that, as is every single one I have ever seen. John Hermanson, the OM repair guru and former Olympus service manager, says no repair parts are available; the lenses are all useless paperweights. Damned shame; it was a very good lens. I shot this with it when I was 15 years old, 24 years ago.

That's interesting Chris. Had One of those perhaps 18 years ago but had not much use for longer than 100mm so sold it. Probably a good thing. I later needed a 200 but wanted to pack light so I found a good deal on the 200 f5 and that is my longest Zuiko OM mount lens now. Really light and compact.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2014   #17
pagpow
Registered User
 
pagpow is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shac View Post
No offense intended, but unless he tested more than one example don't take these as totally accurate - I say that b/c his results for the single coated 100/2.8 and the sc 135/3.5 don't agree w my experience with Nex and A7 bodies. My single examples are v. Good. The 135/3.5 is ridiculously cheap and compact (as konikon stated). Same for the 200/5. Just my 10 worth
No offense taken, Shac. Actually, I find that information useful. I spent some time trying to decide whether to include my observation that opinions differed, particularly when looking at the performance of some of these lenses on digital bodies, but eventually decided not to since the OP's request did not include digital bodies.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2014   #18
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 6,206
Here are a couple of test shots from my 200/5 after I repaired it. I bought it from a camera shop where it had sat on the shelf for years, unprotected. It had been dropped, jamming the aperture. It was a matter of removing the mount, and moving the actuator lever out from under where it was jammed. I also removed the rear optical block for a cleaning. The front was okay.

The photo in the top half shows focus at the far right on the fence, it being closest to the camera. The bottom half shows focus at infinity. I like how one can make out the seed heads of the grass along the tree line in the background. A very good lens indeed. I paid $15 for it.


200mm Test by br1078phot, on Flickr

More of the test at: https://flic.kr/s/aHsjZQtC5p

PF

BTW: I have that 65-200, Chris, but haven't tested it yet. I'll keep that in mind when I do.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2014   #19
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is online now
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 8,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuiko85 View Post
That's interesting Chris. Had One of those perhaps 18 years ago but had not much use for longer than 100mm so sold it. Probably a good thing. I later needed a 200 but wanted to pack light so I found a good deal on the 200 f5 and that is my longest Zuiko OM mount lens now. Really light and compact.
The 65-200 OM lens was cool because it focused very close in its "Macro" mode, but was still very sharp. That's how I did the flower photo I posted. I shot that when I was 15 at the botanical gardens in downtown Fort Wayne. They had a flower photo contest, open to kids and adults, and I entered it with that photo a few months after I shot it. Won 1st place, which got me a $200 gift certificate for a local camera store. I used it to get my first good professional-level tripod, a Manfrotto 3011 that I still own and use today, 24 years later!
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2014   #20
ped
Small brown dog
 
ped's Avatar
 
ped is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: England
Posts: 945
I hear the 180/2.8 has massive (or certainly quite a lot of) CA - thoughts?
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2014   #21
rodt16s
Registered User
 
rodt16s is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Wiltshire UK
Posts: 641
Whereabouts in the UK are you ped..?
__________________
M's, & OM's
Just taking pics of stuff.
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2014   #22
ped
Small brown dog
 
ped's Avatar
 
ped is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: England
Posts: 945
I'm in York now, just moved from Oxford. It's nice up here!
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2014   #23
jcb4718
Registered User
 
jcb4718 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 158
I have used the OM 200mm f4 and the 180mm f2.8. If you look for it, the 180mm has more purple fringing and its a deeper purple, too. But in 'real' photos I never noticed it much. In the end I kept the 200mm lens simply because much more handy (smaller and lighter). I always use it with a fast film. All these longer lenses definitely need to be used with a faster shutter speed (1/250 or faster), even with a tripod...and I would not put on a tripod a camera with a 180mm fitted. It's too heavy and doesn't have a collar (unlike the OM 300mm f4.5)

Last edited by jcb4718 : 12-01-2014 at 02:46. Reason: typo
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2014   #24
lynnb
Registered User
 
lynnb's Avatar
 
lynnb is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,456
I had the Zuiko 200/4 and liked it a lot. This was taken wide open on Kodachrome 25.

__________________
Lynn
happiest when shooting 35mm and 120 film
RFF Gallery
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2014   #25
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,595
Love that ^ pic!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2014   #26
rodt16s
Registered User
 
rodt16s is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Wiltshire UK
Posts: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by ped View Post
I'm in York now, just moved from Oxford. It's nice up here!
Oh well never mind, I'm in Swindon, otherwise you could of tried mine.. even given a 250/2 a try out
__________________
M's, & OM's
Just taking pics of stuff.
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2014   #27
ped
Small brown dog
 
ped's Avatar
 
ped is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: England
Posts: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodt16s View Post
Oh well never mind, I'm in Swindon, otherwise you could of tried mine.. even given a 250/2 a try out
Thanks for the kind offer
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2014   #28
TXForester
Registered User
 
TXForester's Avatar
 
TXForester is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alba, Texas
Posts: 1,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by kuzano View Post
Vivitar used at least a half dozen manufacturers to fill the specs of the 70-210. The best 3 were, as I recall, Kiron, Tokina, and Cosina.
Thanks for the information. Mine is the earliest, Kiron, version.
__________________
Bender: I support and oppose many things, but not strongly enough to pick up a pen.

Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey-cage. ― H.L. Mencken
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2014   #29
dtcls100
Registered User
 
dtcls100 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 456
Originally Posted by kuzano
Vivitar used at least a half dozen manufacturers to fill the specs of the 70-210. The best 3 were, as I recall, Kiron, Tokina, and Cosina.

Actually, that is not quite right. The best 3 versions of the Series 1 70-210 were the first three versions that were manufactured by Kiron (v1), Tokina (v2) and Komine (v3). Cosina made one of the later versions that supposedly was not nearly as good.

I have the Kiron and Komine versions. The Komine is lighter, smoother, handles better, and easier to focus, but I personally think the image quality is about the same between the two versions, even though lens tests I have seen indicate that the Komine is clearly superior. Mechanically, the Komine I have is pretty much the smoothest zoom I have ever handled, with silky smooth focusing and zooming with no lens creep whatsoever. However, the Tamron SP 80-200 f2.8 is definitely sharper.

BTW, the Kiron version frequently has zoom creep. One can easily fix that by rolling back the focusing ring's rubber and tightening the screws underneath a bit. I fixed mine that way and now it does not creep at all even when pointing straight up or down. The zoom action is acceptably smooth, but not in the same class as the Komine which zooms like butter, but doesn't creep at all.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2014   #30
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,250
I really like the 180/2.8. Not just for picture quality, but also because it is relatively small and easy to hand-hold.





(on Reala 100)

That being said, if you really want small and sharp, the 200/5 is great.

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2014   #31
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 6,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
I really like the 180/2.8. Not just for picture quality, but also because it is relatively small and easy to hand-hold.





(on Reala 100)

That being said, if you really want small and sharp, the 200/5 is great.

Roland.
Aaagh! GAS attack!

PF

Okay, I'm over it. Just looked at the checking account.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2014   #32
wblynch
Registered User
 
wblynch is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 644
I may be one of few but I still love the Zuiko 75-150/4.0
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2014   #33
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,138
I have the 200/4. It is good and not too heavy. The 100 2.8 would be the next Zuiko I'd get, but I think my brother might have one he's not using.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2014   #34
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard G View Post
I have the 200/4. It is good and not too heavy. The 100 2.8 would be the next Zuiko I'd get, but I think my brother might have one he's not using.
Yes!
The 100 f2.8 is my favorite zuiko.
Sharp, nice oof area, tiny compared to most 100's
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2014   #35
CliveC
Registered User
 
CliveC is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 677
Quote:
Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
I may be one of few but I still love the Zuiko 75-150/4.0
I've been meaning to try one. I keep hearing how Zuiko zooms aren't really worth getting though.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2014   #36
trip-xa
Registered User
 
trip-xa is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 95
On the third party note, I have the Vivitar 135/2.8 and really like it. There is a close focus version, which I don't have that is also supposed to be nice.

Here on digitial:

A Dancer in the Light by Fogel&#x27;s Focus, on Flickr

and with film:

Pressure by Fogel&#x27;s Focus, on Flickr
__________________
- Dan

Leica M2, Olympus OM-1n (black), Yashica Mat (Lumaxar), marathon runner

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danfogel
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-06-2015   #37
wblynch
Registered User
 
wblynch is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliveC View Post
I've been meaning to try one. I keep hearing how Zuiko zooms aren't really worth getting though.
More's the pity. Try one. They're cheap, small, handy and great.

Pull out that lens hood in the daytime. Makes a huge difference.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2015   #38
Cesium
Registered User
 
Cesium is offline
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 19
I agree that the 100mm f/2.8 is a great longer lens and very small, which adds a lot of value to it IMO.

Here's a shot with the 100 f/2.8


Does anyone have experience with the 300mm f/4.5? That's one that I keep looking at, but can never pull the trigger. I probably wouldn't have much use for it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2015   #39
dtcls100
Registered User
 
dtcls100 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 456
[quote=Cesium;2435277)

Does anyone have experience with the 300mm f/4.5? That's one that I keep looking at, but can never pull the trigger. I probably wouldn't have much use for it.[/QUOTE]

I have a later multicoated Zuiko 300 f4.5 in near mint condition. On a tripod it can take quite sharp pics with very good color and very good bokeh and with pretty well controlled fringing. It is a good lens for portraits at a distance and tele landscapes, is compact for its focal length, is hand holdable and has an excellent built in hood. However, it really is not well suited for sports or wildlife that moves around a good deal. This is because the focusing ring action, while quite smooth, is very heavy. I spoke with John Hermanson of Camtech about this and he said this is typical of this lens, given the absence of internal focusing and the weight of the elements being moved around, so the heavy focusing action cannot be corrected.

For a 300, the Tamron SP adaptall 300 f2.8 (latest 360b model) is crackling sharp on a tripod and has excellent color, very little fringing (due to ED glass) and wonderfully light internal focusing so you can focus with one finger. The brightness and ease of focusing also is outstanding. It is a big lens though, so hand holding it is not feasible. It takes rear filters, but also is threaded to take a 112 mm filter to protect the front element. All in all, I typically use the Tamron SP over the Zuiko 300.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2015   #40
Cesium
Registered User
 
Cesium is offline
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 19
Thanks for the reply. Interesting to hear about the focusing action of the zuiko 300mm; I never knew that.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:54.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.