Hi,
First off: welcome to the list! :)
As most of the questions you asked in your message have already been
answered by others, I'll try to keep my reply limited to what has not been
answered and my own personal experiences.
> 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.
[...]
> So,I decided to buy one. My main requirements would be lens quality
> and size. Price of course is to be considered.
Hold these thoughts for a second, I'll get back to them later.
> The OM line is quite limited in zoom lenses.
Yes, I was a bit dissapointed with that too, as I really wanted a Zuiko
28-135 zoom :(
> 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.
Aaaaaah, an honest reply; where can one find one of those nowadays ?!? :)
Indeed, the Zuiko's quality is probably unmatched by any other lens
fabricated for the Olympus OM system.
> 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.
I agree with your line of thought, but I would like to give you a slightly
different couple of considerations:
-For the 35-70 range consider the 35-70/4 or the 35-70/3.6 Zuikos. The
former is the one I use and it's a very nice lens (IMO), this is now my
standard lens, and some 700f the pictures I take are taken with that lens.
I can't personally attest to the F3.6 version, it is said to give an even
higher quality than the F4 version, but it's also heavier and more
expensive. If money and weight are not an issue, go for the rare 35-80/2.8;
without a doubt the nicest lens in this range, but heavy and expen$$$ive.
The 35-70/4 should set you back only some $100, as it is a ubiquitous lens,
the 35-70/3.6 should go for around $200 - $250, and you're lucky if you can
find the 35-80/2.8 for anything less than $500 --- and yes, these are 2nd
hand prices.
-For the upper range I would consider two lenses, being the 65-200/4 and the
50-250/5, both of these are regarded high performers. The same goes for the
85-200/5, but it's much heavier than the other two zooms. I personally have
the 65-200/4 and this lens has the word EXCELLENT written all over it; it
gives a lovely telephoto range and can pretty well be used handheld (when
one has a stable hand, that is), and most important, the pictures it allows
you to take are razor sharp. The 50-250/5 may or may not be better even, the
weight is almost the same (some 730+ grams), but it's slightly slower (F5
vs. F4). These would be the two lenses I would consider. Now to reintroduce
one of the thoughts that was put on a hold, you do already have a 200/5
Zuiko, so in order for a zoom to add any value to that you would either have
to seek that in a faster one (like e.g. the 65-200/4) or in a range which
surpasses or undercuts the 200mm. This is where the money factor comes into
play. You can probably find a used 65-200/4 in excellent+ condition for
around $200 (shop around, haggle and you might get a better deal even),
unfortunately the 50-250/5 is much rarer, so I would expect to have to pay
at least $300 for it. As mentioned, there is actually a third option if the
two above mentioned prices are an issue, and that's the 75-150/4 zoom. While
not as good as the 65-200/4 and the 50-250/5, it is still known for
delivering very sharp pictures. Also, it's about as ubiquitous as the
35-70/4 and therefore with some luck it might be found for some $100 - $125.
Ah yes, I typically use the 65-200/4 some 150f the time, so add that to
the 700f the 35-70/4 and you see that only during 150f the time I use
the more specialised (and often substantially more expensive) primes.
> What do you think of all this? Would I be better with the 2
> Zuiko lenses instead of the Tamron?
I would say so, a few weeks ago I went to Paris, during that trip I armed my
OM-40 with the 65-200/4 and the OM-4Ti with the 35-70/4. Using that combo I
found myself hardly ever changing lenses. It was only for special pictures
that I used the far more expensive 35/2.8 Shift and the 24/2.8 lenses.
My opinion is that if you would buy something like the 35-70/4 and the
65-200/4, and use that in combination with the 28/3.5 for the more serious
wide angle needs, you will have a very nice and almost complete system. I
specifically wrote "almost", as this is where zuikoholism starts coming into
play (aargh, I _need_ that 500/8 reflex lens, and the 90/2 macro), so if
you're like the average list member you'll think you never have enough, even
though in reality you do ;)
O.k., I think these thoughts could be useful for your decision, but I'd like
to conclude with two more recommendations for you:
1-Revisit the 28/3.5, for it's a lovely wide angle. Many of my pictures (
http://members.xoom.com/olaf_greve ) have been taken with it, and this lens
has always given me a lot of pleasure.
2-Consider buying an Olympus 2xA teleconverter (2nd handed +/- $125) for the
200/5 to go to the lengths of a 400/10 if you desire a supertelephoto lens.
Hope this helps!
Olafo
< 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 >
|