Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,771   Posts: 1,516,531   Online: 804
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Vienna, AUSTRIA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    65
    It is a wonderful little lens, very sharp. I love it especially for building details or landscapes:


    Mantova von kanzlr auf Flickr

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by thuggins View Post
    The more appropriate question would be, "Is there any Zuiko lens that is not good glass?". The 135f3.5 is a tiny little lens, and it is particularly striking as the silver nose. I agree that it is an odd length, but it would probably be very appropriate for portrait photographers.

    It is so small that it is easy to keep in the bag "just in case", though. Given that it does not have a significant perspective distortion it is handy for framing distant scenes that you can't physically approach. I got some nice shots of Stonehenge from outside the fence with mine.

    Thank you friends!

    Tim,many people told me the same expression that you're saying now in this post..."is there any Zuiko that is not good glass"?...
    I'm very curious:could you tell the Zuikos that are less performant...please?
    I know that is a complicated question, because they say that all the Zuiko objetives are (at least) good glasses...
    They say that there's not a completely bad or not performant models from the Zuiko's production.
    They say that there're some Zuiko that aren't very good or excellent like the others,but they're all acceptable glasses.
    Do you know what are these lenses,please?

  3. #13
    mr rusty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    lancashire, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    609
    Images
    95
    The ones that are very expensive are definitely good glass. The ones that are medium expensive are also definitely good glass but more common. Some of the ones that are dirt cheap are definitely good glass but are cheap because every camera came with one (50mm f1.8 For example). The rest are the cheap other lenses which have a slightly more mixed review - most of the zooms, but as they're cheap go buy one, try it out and form your own opinion. As "walkabouts" I often use zuiko zooms, and I am seldom disappointed. The only one I don't like is the 35-70 f3.5-4.5 - the small one. Much prefer the 35-70 F4.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	30810020_600.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	104.7 KB 
ID:	62976Click image for larger version. 

Name:	exceprt_600.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	62.4 KB 
ID:	62977

    Detail from the 35-70 F4. No such thing as bad Zuiko glass!

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    529
    Images
    133
    All Zuikos are good. I even have some older silvernoses which I have nothing to complain about There seem to be some rules of thumb to identify exceptionally good ones though.
    I will try to compile all Zuiko lens-lore I could gather:
    The 3.6/35-70 is said to be as good as primes and should be preferred to the 3.5-4.5 version.
    The 1.8/50 lens, which has the 'made in Japan' inscription on the front ring, is said to be one of the best normal lenses ever.
    Between the 1.4/50 lenses, the one with serials > 1 mio. should be preferred. I have nothing to complain about mine, which is in the 700k range, though.
    All 2.0/n are said to be exceptionally good.
    The 2.0/90 should be preferred over the 2.0/85 if the main subject isn't portrait, as it is said to be sharp as a razor-blade, which female subjects do not appreciate mostly.
    There does not seem to be a general rule to identify single coated lenses. All what can be said seems to be:
    All silvernoses are single coated
    All non-silvernoses manufactured in the time of transition are marked MC if they are multi coated
    All late lenses are multi coated even if they are not denoted as being such.
    Unfortunately there is no way to identify a single coated lens if it is not a silvernose as Olympus later dropped the term MC

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    105
    thank you very much!...

    OK,only a last question:you didn't write any info about the 200 mm lens.I'm searchnig for a cheap but good version!
    Is there a F 3.5, F 4 or F 4.5 (they should be more cheaper than the F 1.8,F 2...ecc ecc)?...I'm not searching for a fast lens,simply I'm seraching for a good Zuiko glass...Thank you very much!

  6. #16
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,020
    Images
    60
    I prefer the 200mm f/5 lens to the 200mm f/4 version. They are both quite good optically, but the f/5 version is tiny for such a long focal length, and used 49mm filters.

    It is however a bit dim to focus in poor light.

    It is also a bit harder to find then the f/4 version, because fewer were made.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    796
    I like my 135/3.5 Zuiko but if I am shooting with a 135 it will probably be the f/2.8 Vivitar Close Focusing. The Viviar 135/2.8 TX lens is also nice on an Olympus because of its small size.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,419
    My rule of thumb... Use the lens hood. You will never know the difference between a silver-nose and a black-nose, which all a bunch of baloney anyway.

    Use a lens hood on a 75-150 and you will have a new love. Oh yeah, the lens hood on the 75-150 is built-in. So use it.

    I think the 135/3.5 also has a built-in hood.

    Although there are times when you want flare, then you can leave the hood off.
    - Bill Lynch

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    268
    Thanks for posting that pic, Mr Rusty. It is a great example of the quality that Olympus put into lowly "kit" lenses. I have seen others cast asparagus at the 35-70f3.5-4.5, with comments regarding barrel distortion. But I used one for years (it was my only lens for quite a while) and never noticed any problems with the images. And it is so small - smaller than most primes in that range. It is still always a puzzle to decide between carrying that one or the f3.6 whenever packing for a trip. I need to do a side by side comparison.

    I also vote for the 200f5. It is certainly among the smallest (if not the smallest) 200mm ever made. It is much more portable than the f4 with a negligible difference in speed. The T-converters that Olympus made for the IS cameras can extend these into long zooms without the light attenuation of a typical teleconvertor. Since I was travelling on the day of the transit of Venus, I needed a really tiny kit that would fit into the spare pockets of my bag. That ended up being the 200f5, the 1.5X T-con made for the IS-1000, and a barlow lens jigged up for the purpose. With the 2X factor of the Lumix G2 that gave nearly 1600mm in a size smaller than most manufacturer's kit lens. It was so small and light it could sit on a "pocket" tripod. The weakest link was the solar filter made from layers of mylar window film, but the results were still not bad.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P1000819r.jpg 
Views:	7 
Size:	125.6 KB 
ID:	63124

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin