A while ago, george <gma@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>John A. Prosper wrote:
>>
>> I think the 28-48/4 was a pre-1980 design, and the 35-105
>> is definitely modern. [snip]
>> You may want to give Gary Schloss a shout here. I believe
>> he has experience with the 28-48/4. Several posters can
>> offer their testimonies on the 35-105.
>
>Does anyone have any real-world experience they may want to
>share? Gary? You talkin to me?
I have had very good experiences with both lenses. I understand
that both these zooms appeared around the same time (mid-80's),
and neither was made by Olympus. The 35-105 has at least one
identical twin -- the Yashica ML 35-105. AFAIK, the 28-48 had
no clones. I guess the limited zoom range made these lenses
unattractive to consumers.
Performance-wise, the 35-105 is, IMHO, terrific: very sharp and
almost too contrasty (I like it. YMMV, especially if you want to
use the 85-105 range for portraits). For whatever reason, this
is one of the more expensive medium-range Zuiko zooms, new or
used. (Same price paradox exists in the AF Olympus lineup). To
summarize: if you can afford one, you won't be disappointed.
I had done more extensive testing of the 28-48 Zuiko about 18 mos
ago. In this test, which btw was reported here, I compared this
lens against the following: Soligor 24-45mm F3.5-4.5, and Hoya
25-42mm F3.5. This particular Soligor is, IMHO, one of this
company's few unqualified successes. The Hoya was also sold as
a Sun 24-40mm F3.5, and was later redesigned and released as the
Tokina AT-X 24-40mm F2.8. Both Soligor and Hoya are 2-touch, MC,
and have close focusing (the Zuiko doesn't).
I tested all three lenses wide-open as well as at mid-aperture
range. The Zuiko came out on top -- sharp corner to corner, with
excellent contrast and color rendition, with Soligor a very close
second. The Hoya was noticeably softer wide-open, but it improved
a lot at F=5.6 and up.
To summarize: while some published tests berated the 28-48,
I find it a consistent performer and a pleasure to use. It may
not be up there with the best prime w/a Zuikos, but IMHO it's
a solid choice for casual urban/landscape/vacation shooting.
I also highly recommend the Soligor.
A couple more w/a zooms are noteworthy IMHO, although I had no
chance to test them seriously: Vivitar Series 1 24-48mm F3.8 is
a BIG lens, but has a good reputation; and Tamron SP 24-48mm
F3.5-3.8 is a very nice, compact, but expensive and scarce lens.
With Olympus asleep at the wheel, we, Zuiks, have little choice
but to salivate from afar over such exotic new offerings from
the competition as 24-85mm, 24-120, and even 24-135mm zooms.
The only specimen available to us in this category is the rare
Vivitar Series 1 24-70mm, which gets rather mixed reviews. :-(
Foxy wrote:
>Ken N. wrote:
>>
>>I owned the 100-200/5 Zuiko zoom. I thought it was really
>>substandard for Olympus -- the lens equivelent to pond water.
>
>But it was a S Zuiko. Like the 35-70mm F4 and the new zooms for
>OM-2000 (52mm filter), it is intended for the "consumer" market.
I would caution here against generalizations: after all, both the
28-48 and esp. the 35-70/3.5-4.5 are S Zuikos. Yet, many on this
list are very happy with their optical performance. I wouldn't be
surprised if the new Zuiko family members exhibited the same high
standard of optical "value for the money", at the expense of pro-
level sturdiness and durability.
Cheers,
/Gary Schloss.
Studio City, CA
schloss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
< 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 >
|