In a message dated 7/24/99 4:15:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
j.leonarddesigner@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> Hi,
> I am new to the Olympus list (I subscribed this week) and I would
> appreciate your input on a subject that I am quite sure has already been
> discused in this group.
Welcome to the list!
>
> I owned a venerable (...) OM-1 I bought new in 1974. I always liked this
> camera and still do.
> I have a 50mm f1.8 wich has been my prime lens with the OM-1. Over the
> years, I made superb pictures with it, and this lens would justify buying
> another Olympus body if mine was lost.
I like the way this man thinks!
>
> A few years later, I bought a 200mm f5 (for it's size) and later on a 28mm
> f3.5. I don't use the 200 and very seldom the 28.
>
> Now here is my problem. Two weeks ago, I went to an event where a zoom lens
> would have been very usefull. I never had one. So,I decided to buy one. My
> main requirements would be lens quality and size. Price of course is to be
> considered.
>
> The OM line is quite limited in zoom lenses. Looking in Shutterbug
> magazine, I saw an add for a Tamron 28-200mm f3.8-5.6 Super now available
> for manual cameras. I went to a camera store near home, to see this lens. I
> had my OM-1 with me. First impression was... plastic. In the '70 lens were
> not made of plastic. I asked the salesman if this lens was good. He was
> probably honest by saying it wasn't bad, that it was a good lens for 4x6.
> My first question is regarding this lens. Is it good or not? If I use a
> tripod with it, could I get pictures good enough to make fairly large
> prints or would it still be of insuficient quality? The lens has the
> advantage of being small, light and I think practical with it's 28-200
> span.
I've never used one of these long range zooms, but from what I have heard
your salesman is (surprise!) being fairly honest. They are adequate for
snapshot type stuff. Obviously you need to weigh the quality factor against
the convenience factor.
>
> Inquiring about the Zuiko lenses (none in stock but he can order) the
> salesman told me that they would probably be better in quality and also
> give better results than the Tamron.
> Now, to cover approximately the same focal length, I should buy two Zuiko
> lenses, the 35-70mm f3.5-4.8 and the 70-210 f4.5-5.6.
>
> What do you think of all this? Would I be better with the 2 Zuiko lenses
> instead of the Tamron? He also told me the 70-210 was made by Cosina. So is
> this as good as a Zuiko or as a Cosina? Is it better, similar or worse than
> a Tamron?
These 2 zooms would most definitely give you better quality images than a
28-200. I believe Gary Reese has tested the 70-210. Check his lens test page
at http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm
Other than the unodly expensive (and presumably wonderful) 35-80/2.8, these
are the only zooms you can buy new with the Zuiko name on them.
>
> As you can see I am quite mixed up in all this! Checking in a few
> magazines, I also saw listed in a buyer's guide a 65-200 and a 50-250 made
> by Olympus. Are these lenses still available? How do they stand compared to
> the other ones?
The 65-200 and 85-250 both have excellent reputations, and are not too hard
to find used. There was also a 100-200/5. The 50-250 is apparently pretty
rare. Other Zuiko zooms include three 35-70's: a 35-70/3.6, 35-70/4, and a
35-70/3.5-4.5. The latter is particularly small and light. Finally there is a
28-48/4, again a small light lens.
>
> Can some of you help me in this jambalaya?
>
> Thanks for reading me and have a great weekend (here it is rainy today...)
>
> Jacques Leonard
> designer
Paul Schings
Coventry, Rhode Island USA
< 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 >
|