Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,732   Posts: 1,515,261   Online: 757
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11
    frugal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Halifax, NS, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    150
    Images
    11
    I'll chime in with another vote for the 35/2.0, it's a great lens. The only downside you might find is that it's 55mm filter thread while most/all of the other shorter lenses from Olympus are 49mm. The 28/2.8 is nice too but I don't use mine too often. I'll also add a vote for the 24/2.8, 35/2 and 85/2 kit, that's what I used for 8 months in SE Asia with 2 OM-1n's and it was a great setup.

    Your 50 could be decent to really good depending on the aperture and what generation they are. Supposedly, the best are the last 50/1.8's (with "Made in Japan" along around the front element) and the last 50/1.4's (with a serial number higher than 1.1 million). I used to have an older 50/1.8 that died and I couldn't believe the difference in the 50/1.4. I don't know what the 50/1.8 was but the 50/1.4 is one of the later ones, not into 1.1 territory so I'm not sure if it's the last generation or not but it's a great lens.

    Someone mentioned the 40/2 pancake. I've heard differing reviews, a lot saying it's nothing spectacular. It has certainly received a cult status and for some time the prices were ridiculously inflated because of that. Don't know what they're like more recently.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Rochester, NY/Toronto, ON
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    559
    The 20/f4 is a macro only lens, i.e. for use with bellows. For normal use there is the 21/f3.5 and 21/f2. The former goes for a pretty good price, it is quite prized by many OM enthusiasts. The 21/2 is even more expensive and, I can say, is stellar. I have one and it is not going anywhere soon.

    Unless you are doing very low light stuff and need the 35/2, I'd save my money and go for the 35/2.8. Yes, the 35/2 is wonderful, but a LOT more expensive than the 2.8. And the 2.8 is no slouch, not by a mile.

    Of the 28s, I can't say which is "better". I have both, but haven't done exacting comparisons. I snagged a 2.8 for very little money; there was a delay in shipping and the seller was quite apologetic so refunded my shipping. So I think it ended up costing me about $10. (There is some very slight problem around the outer edge of the front element, but has no effect on images.)

    I echo the comments on the 50s ... my 1.4 is not in 1.1M serial number territory, butis quite nice. I also have a late 1.8 (miJ), as well as an MC 1.8. Only the first edition (silver nose) was sub-par, but even that had a very nice look to it if sharpness was not a real issue.

    Another really, really nice lens is the 100/2.8. No, a short tele is not often thought of as a 'street' lens, but sometimes it comes in handy. And for the money, the Zuiko 100/2.8 is quite, quite nice. It is nearly as small as some other brand 50s, so I think the small size/handhold-ability add to its usefulness.

    All reports I've seen on the 40 (as much as I'd like to have one for its size) indicate it is not worth the premium it is now fetching. Not that it's a bad lens, but at $600+, it's too much.

    BTW, I don't think 28 is too wide for street work, and I think 28 and 35 are enough different in look & feel to have both. They're small.

    Earl

    PS: Hey Andrew ... good to see you here! I'm mostly on RFF these days; shooting mostly with and Olympus 35 SP, which seems to be welded to my hands.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey A. Steinberg
    Go a little wider. The 24 F2.8 is an amazing lens. 28 never felt wide enough for me. They also have a 20 F4 but I nevery tried that.

    For me the ideal set is:

    24 F2.8
    80 F2
    100 F2.8 (I believe)
    134 F2.8

    With that you can own the world. Great cameras, very light and nice. Make sure you get the camera cleaned and algined and get the foam replaced at a reputable repair shop.

    Congrats from a 30-year user of an OM-1n who just also bought an OM-3 and an OM-4Ti

    --Jeffrey Steinberg
    Honey, I promise no more searching eBay for cameras.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    North of England
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    491
    Images
    2
    Thanks for the replies and advice. When I used to shoot with an F3 I liked a 28mm lens so that's a definite. Time to start shopping around as I've noticed that some of the lenses still seem to hold their price quite well. The one thing going for the Olympus lens range is the physical size. Even some of the bigger glass is still quite small when compared to other manufacturers and this is one of the reasons I looked into the OM as a street camera.

    Earl, I'm using an Olympus 35 RC which is a lovely little camera and for the price an absolute steal.
    So many drummers, so little time.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,089
    Images
    2
    Where did you get an OM-2n with a 50mm for £40?

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    North of England
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    491
    Images
    2
    It was a lucky eBay find. It was just advertised as an Olympus camera. Both camera and lens are in pretty good condition, however I replaced the seals as a matter of course. The prices of OM cameras appear to be lower than a year ago when I first started looking. The average price of a 1n was around £80, now you can pick them up from £35 to £60 with or without a lens. Less than the price of a good night on the razzle and you have a hell of a camera
    So many drummers, so little time.

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