If you're on a budget the three lenses I would get
would be a 24/2.8, 50/1.8 (look for the later MC one
esp the ones where it says made in Japan on the
front.) and either a 100 or 135/2.8. The 135 is great
and its cheaper, altohugh a bit heavier, than the 100.
If you have quite a bit of cash I would definitely get
a 50/2 macro. Its edge to edge sharp, contrasty, very
good color saturation and it's a dedicated macro that
focuses to 1:2 life size. Interestingly its only $150
more than the 3.5 macro new, but 350-500 used so if
you get a 50/2 macro it'll hold its value much better.
3.5 macro is nice, light, and around 150 used in good
condition, but its quite slow if you want ot use it as
a normal lens.
Mark Lloyd
--- Henrik Dahl <hdahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dean wrote:
> >I'm interested in opinions on the following Zuiko
> lenses (or something
> >close to the ranges below).
> >
> >21mm
> >24mm
> >50mm
> >somewhere between 85 or 100mm
> >135mm
> >200mm
> >
> >I've not started yet, and I'd like some info as to
> which ones are Good or
> >even Great, Average, or not so good? thanks.
> >-dean
>
> Dean,
> you have huge bunch of options there, and you'll
> probably recieve
> tons of answers. All Zuikos are generally good, some
> are great, and
> the "not-in-my-price-range" ones might very well be
> outstanding in
> the world. You will have to go bargaining
> second-hand
> Choises has a lot to do with:
> 1) what type of photography you mainly do/want to
> try
> 2) if you're a poor student or "hemhorroging" money
> (a new expr I
> learned from the list the other day, means you have
> a bunch, I think)
> 3) the limits you set for lightness vs weight,
> bulkyness vs small equipment etc
> 4) if you prefer the slightly warmer tone as
> reported rendered by
> single-coated (SC) versions or the less flary
> multi-coated (MC) ones
> 5) sheer "feeling" (subjective, hard to describe)
> for a lens
>
> Personal: I myself am not very rich, so I always
> have to go for the
> slower, lighter glass. I'll go through the ones I
> know about:
>
> 24 mm. I use the 24/2.8 SC (yes, Ken it's a
> silvernoze), with a lot
> of joy. It's compact and light and in my
> non-professional eyes very
> sharp. The 24/2 is one stop faster and probably even
> sharper, but
> also slightly heavier and twice the price. The 24mm
> is ideal for
> scenics and IMHO portraits, giving a not too, but
> yet exaggerated
> wiew. Haven't had any distorsion problems at all,
> but it's a little
> tricky with filters because of vignetting. This is
> one of my absolute
> favourites. A great WA in between the real ones
> (21-16) and the
> wishy-washy ones (28-35) The 24/2.8 is 120~200
> depending on version
>
> 50 mm. There are so many to chose from. You must
> have at least one of
> these. Zuikos are made in either normal 50mm with
> varying speed or
> 50mm macro. From what I've learned and experienced:
> 50/1.8 - very cheap ($20~35), very light and very
> sharp if you get a
> late version ("made in japan" on front)
> 50/1.4 - more expensive ($40~100), and very sharp if
> latest version
> (serial >1.000.000) If you find a late version one
> for a reasonable
> price - get it!
> 50/1.2 - The fastest, heaviest and most expensive
> ($250+) But a lot
> of glass for the money
> 50/3.5 macro - a little inbetween: not fast and (as
> I'm told) not to
> sharp, but quite cheap. Serves doubleduty as
> standard and macro. As
> does
> 50/2 macro - This I would really like to afford, but
> alas...
>
> 85 mm. I use the 85/2 wich I enjoy fully. It's the
> MC version, and
> it's simply beautiful. Perfect, of course, for
> portraits, but it also
> serves as a standard for far away wiews. The 85/2 is
> one I'll never
> let go of. It's tiny and not too expensive
> ($140~220) and worth every
> cent
> 100 mm. I had the 100/2.8, but gave that up in
> favour for the faster
> 85. This is else a cheaper version with almost the
> same perspective
> The big brother is the 100/2 which I hear is
> fantastic, but again out
> of my economical reach.
>
> 135 mm comes in two flavours: 3.5 and 2.8.. None of
> them are very
> expensive (3.5 $40~70, 2.8 $70~130) and they serve
> very well as short
> telephotos. The 3.5 is obviously somewhat smaller,
> but not much. To
> my knowledge that one was only made in SC. A good
> lens to have in
> handy. The 2.8 I believe is sharper, though.
>
> As said, many of these opinions are purely
> subjective.
>
> Some links:
>
> The "bible"
> http://www.taiga.ca/~esif/om-sif/lensgroup.htm
>
> Buying used
>
http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/olympus.faq.html#ques_L0
>
> Lens tests
>
http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm
>
> Good luck hunting. You've choosen the best of
> systems, there's
> something for every type and wallet.
>
> Henrik Dahl
>
>
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing
> List >
> < For questions,
> mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page:
> http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|