Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
While reading up on short teles I started noticing decent comments about a few of the Olympus 35-70 zooms. I'm not much of a fan of zooms in general and of 1970s-1980s zooms in particular, but it could be a damn convenient single lens to carry on days I don't want to have a full kit with me. (My normal RF kit is a 35mm and a 75mm.)
I see four (?) different MF models that were offered by Olympus:
* 35-70/3.6 constant (f/3.6?!?!?)
* 35-70/4 constant
* 35-70/3.5-4.5 variable
* 35-70/3.5-4.8 variable (Cosina made?)
Are any of these worth considering for a walkabout lens? A few people on pNut are big fans of the 3.5-4.5 version, but I figure y'all have some experience, too.
I see four (?) different MF models that were offered by Olympus:
* 35-70/3.6 constant (f/3.6?!?!?)
* 35-70/4 constant
* 35-70/3.5-4.5 variable
* 35-70/3.5-4.8 variable (Cosina made?)
Are any of these worth considering for a walkabout lens? A few people on pNut are big fans of the 3.5-4.5 version, but I figure y'all have some experience, too.
Tom Diaz
Well-known
I sought after and finally bought an f/3.6 back when I used OM equipment. It was really nice. Everyone always said it was the best of them. A couple of them were definitely downscale in terms of build quality and optical quality, but the f/3.6 seemed great.
By the way, in film equipment, I went from Olympus to Leica, and the quality difference was very noticeable! I am not sure that is quite so true of other 35mm transitions. As much as I loved the OM equipment, I think the optical quality of the lenses sometimes took second place to the design goals of being small and light. The f/3.6 seemed a cut above, though.
Tom
Tom
pagpow
Well-known
Go here
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/3570mm.htm
for specs of each and some discussion of the particular advantages of each.
I believe the 3.6 was deemed best, the 3.5-4.8 closest focusing -- size, weight, and filter size, plus other items there.
I'm interested in experiences, too.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/3570mm.htm
for specs of each and some discussion of the particular advantages of each.
I believe the 3.6 was deemed best, the 3.5-4.8 closest focusing -- size, weight, and filter size, plus other items there.
I'm interested in experiences, too.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I have shotthe 35-70 f4, I have the somewhat uncommon version with a built in autofocus sensor that will allow autofocus on manual-focus OM bodies. It was made especially for the OM-F (OM-30), which I have never used, but it works on all other OM bodies too. Its ok optically. Not the best 35-70 but it isn't soft either, just not ultra sharp. The autofocus one I have is built very well, but the regular version is all plastic and is really poorly made.
I was just given one of the f3.5-4.5 lenses. It is SMALL! Nicely made too. I have not had a chance to shoot it, but I like it already.
I was just given one of the f3.5-4.5 lenses. It is SMALL! Nicely made too. I have not had a chance to shoot it, but I like it already.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
This is what you want: http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif/lensgroup/35-80mmf28.htm
Tom Diaz
Well-known
Oh, yeah! I'd forgotten about that one. It came on the scene after I had the f/3.6, and I also was starting to withdraw from OM-land. However, that design looks very inviting. Does anyone here have experience with it?
Tom
gnarayan
Gautham Narayan
Had it (the original - not the one Chris is talking about) - hated it. Not great wide open. Very big, surprisingly hard to focus, and it wasn't parfocal so if you zoom in, focus and zoom out, focus is no longer what you think it is. Traded it for an OM Winder 2.
A really small and good carry around kit is OM 35/2,8 (I traded that for the 35/2 but its a pretty darn fine lens) and the OM 85/2.
Cheers,
-Gautham
Richard Ross
Established
I've no experience of the 35-70s but I do have a 35-105, and it's superb.
Regards
Richard
Regards
Richard
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Yes, I forgot the 35-105, though it strays from the 70-80 long end that, for me, is a bit more practical for a single carry-around zoom. Of course, I don't use zooms anyway. 
Dean Cho
Member
The 35-80 f.2.8 is outstanding. As good as any prime lens in its range. Only drawbacks are that it is very rare, tough to find and expensive. Got mine about ten years ago when it was about $1500. Now, one could probably sell it for a good deal more.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I think any of the f/2.8 lenses will be too large, heavy and expensive for me. It looks like it's down between the f/4 and the f3.5-4.5 versions - the variable is about half the weight of the fixed.
Ade-oh
Well-known
I had one but didn't like it: I found the images a bit soft. Having said that, it could have been a dud example and it was the first zoom lens I'd ever owned, so I was comparing it with my small collection of Zuiko prime lenses which I've always thought were pretty good.
oscroft
Mentor
I've had all three of those, and the f/3.6 was outstandingly sharp - probably as good as primes, I'd say. But the reason I wanted a 35-70 was for travel, and it was a bit big - and I got a good offer for it, so I sold it. (I didn't have the cash to keep too many lenses at the time, but if it was now, I wouldn't part with it).
The f/4 and f/3.5-4.5 seemed quite similar in image quality to me, with the f/4 probably having a slight edge. But the small size of the f/3.5-4.5 won it for me - it's no larger than a lot of 50s, and it makes a great travel lens.
But talking of OM zooms, we shouldn't forget the 28-48/4, which is my favourite of them all (for its combination of FL range, image quality, and fairly small size) - but it needs a hood.
Cheers,
BillBingham2
Registered User
Ken,
What about a 28-48/4 and a 75-150/4 in the pocket?
You liked your old CV 28, no?
B2 (;->
What about a 28-48/4 and a 75-150/4 in the pocket?
You liked your old CV 28, no?
B2 (;->
Platinum RF
Well-known
go for 35-80mm/2.8, it is on par with Leica's 35-70mm/2.8 and cost lots of less.
BillBingham2
Registered User
It's a great lens but it's BIG!!!
Ken is looking for a walk around lens that is compact.
B2 (;->
Ken is looking for a walk around lens that is compact.
B2 (;->
zuikologist
.........................
The tamron SP 35-80/2.8 might be a viable and cheap alternative. Very good optically.
Platinum RF
Well-known
The OM 35-70/3.6 some time suffer from rare rear element group fogging problem unable to clear out. I only have one and see one
Richard Ross
Established
Funnily enough my experience is exactly the opposite - I've two 35/2.8s and the 35-105 is sharper than both of them. Attached was taken on Ektar with the 35-105 at the long end, and prints grain-free and tack sharp at A3. It's pretty much my standard lens.
Regards
Richard
Attachments
Mark Wood
Well-known
I've used both:
* 35-70/3.5-4.5 variable
* 35-70/3.5-4.8 variable (Cosina made?)
As has been mentioned elsewhere, the 3.5-4.5 is incredibly compact and fits inside the normal case just as a standard 50 mm would. This actually puts the aperture, zoom and focussing rings very close together which is a bit fiddly. It's also a bit tricky to focus at the 70/4.5 end with a standard screen but.... If my example is representative, it's very sharp throughout its zoom range (certainly at F8 and beyond) and pretty free from distortion - I like it.
The later 3.5-4.8 bears an uncanny resemblance to a variety of other named versions of the lens. I'm pretty sure it was the standard lens with the Cosina-made OM2000 and it has a lot more plastic in its construction than any OM lens I've seen. That said, for what it used to cost, it handles quite nicely and it seems reasonably sharp. I seem to recall that mine has noticeable barrel distortion at the 35 mm end but only really a problem if your hobby is photographing brick walls and lens test charts. It's noticeably much larger than the 3.5-4.5 but it does focus very close. (52 mm filters though rather than the usual Olympus 49.)
So not much help here really!! They're both very usable, especially if the price is right but the 3.5-4.5 probably has the edge in most respects.
* 35-70/3.5-4.5 variable
* 35-70/3.5-4.8 variable (Cosina made?)
As has been mentioned elsewhere, the 3.5-4.5 is incredibly compact and fits inside the normal case just as a standard 50 mm would. This actually puts the aperture, zoom and focussing rings very close together which is a bit fiddly. It's also a bit tricky to focus at the 70/4.5 end with a standard screen but.... If my example is representative, it's very sharp throughout its zoom range (certainly at F8 and beyond) and pretty free from distortion - I like it.
The later 3.5-4.8 bears an uncanny resemblance to a variety of other named versions of the lens. I'm pretty sure it was the standard lens with the Cosina-made OM2000 and it has a lot more plastic in its construction than any OM lens I've seen. That said, for what it used to cost, it handles quite nicely and it seems reasonably sharp. I seem to recall that mine has noticeable barrel distortion at the 35 mm end but only really a problem if your hobby is photographing brick walls and lens test charts. It's noticeably much larger than the 3.5-4.5 but it does focus very close. (52 mm filters though rather than the usual Olympus 49.)
So not much help here really!! They're both very usable, especially if the price is right but the 3.5-4.5 probably has the edge in most respects.