Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] OM: 35-70 lens

Subject: Re: [OM] OM: 35-70 lens
From: Skip Williams <skipwilliams@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:59:17 -0400
Cc: cgeilfuss@xxxxxxxxxxx
In general, I'd agree with Roger. I have a 35-70 3.5-4.5 and a 35-80/2.8, and they are too different beasts. The 35-70/3.6 is pretty close to the 2.8 lens in handling, although the action is a bit rougher. I really like the non-rotating front element, it's a bit of a pain to set the polarizer on the 3.5-4.5 AFTER focusing every time you use it.

What you have to realize is that there are three distinct groups of lenses in this focal length range from Olympus. The 3.6 comes out on top for optical performance. Look at Gary's test for numbers.

1. Smaller, S-Zuiko or third party lenses

- F/3.5-4.5 - S-Zuiko, very small & light, my personal favorite 190g, 49mm (51mm long!)
    http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/veluwen/om-sif/lensgroup/35-70mmf35-45.htm
  - F/3.5-4.8 - S-Zuiko, Cosina-made (nuf said)  185g, 52mm, (65mm long)
    http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/veluwen/om-sif/lensgroup/35-70mmf35-48.htm

2. Two larger lenses

  - F/4 - S-Zuiko, a bit larger,  385g, 55mm
    http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/veluwen/om-sif/lensgroup/35-70mmf4.htm
  - F/3.6 - Zuiko, ball-bearing lens, "pro-specs", 400g, 55mm
    http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/veluwen/om-sif/lensgroup/35-70mmf36.htm

3. The cost-no-object lens

- 35-80/2.8 - Zuiko, LD and High-Index Refraction Glasses, all metal. Superb. 650g, 72mm
    http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/veluwen/om-sif/lensgroup/35-80mmf28.htm

My recommendation: (coincidentally, this is what I did). Buy the 3.5-4.5 for travel and the 35-80/2.8 for critical shots. Try a 3.6 before you buy. I did (thanks Tom), but I didn't like the feel of the lens.

Skip



At 12:55 PM 9/22/00 +0200, you wrote:

Charles Geilfuss wrot:e:
>  At the risk of starting a firestorm: excluding the 35-80/2.8, which is the
>best of the short focal length telephoto lenses (35-70)? Ignore the
>differences in filter size.

IMHO, the f3.6 35-70 gives clearly the best performance (see Gary Reese's
tests), but it weighs more and is not so compact as the f3.5-4.5. It appears
that Olympus designed it for professional use, whereas the f3.5-4.5 and the f4
were not. The 3.6 also has a non-rotating front element, and a lenshood that
stores over the lens. I am, of course, biased, as I chose the 3.6 over the
3.5-4.5!

Regards, Roger Key  CPH




< 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 >



< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz