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 >
|