Hi Michael:
the 135 mm f/3.5 is is nice lens. It is very small and light. It is
also typically a pretty cheap lens ( I just bought one for $49 USD).
Brooklyn Camera has one for $59, with case at:
http://www.brooklyncam.com/inventory/olympus.shtml
They also have a 135 f/2.8 in inventory. I also have a third-party lens
(Sakar) that I bought at *-bay for $15. It is a surprisingly good
performer, and is multi-coated. I believe that all of the f/3.5 Zuikos
are single-coated.
The only drawback that I know of to the battery adapter (assume you mean
the C.R.I.S. unit) is the cost. John H. charges $111 for a CLA, which
includes conversion to a silver oxide battery, and new foam seals. My
theory of the world is that the cost of the adapter is 300f the cost
of the overhaul, which is probably needed for an OM-1(n) anyway. As an
interim measure you can buy a Wein zinc-air cell for about $5 at a Ritz
Camera store or similar. I'm told that these run about 1.4 volts, and
will throw off your meter by about 1/3 stop. These last about six
months or so, in my experience.
Bill Stanke
Michael Zimmet wrote:
>
> I was wondering what people's opinions are of the Zuiko 135mm f/3.5.
> It's not a terribly fast lens, I know, and speed does have its
> place, but the lens is compact and extremely affordable, and those
> are virtues, too.
>
> I'd probably use it stopped down 2 or 3 stops (and focused right
> around infinity), for various sorts of landscape work. And
> occasionally wide open or nearly wide open (and focused fairly close
> -- maybe 7-15 feet) for portraits.
>
> It occurs to me that stopped down a bit, most lenses are pretty good
> performers. But wide open is where quality tends to make itself
> known.
>
> Also, could someone tell me about the 85mm f/2 Zuiko? I've heard
> virtually nothing about this lens, and it interests me quite a lot,
> as fast to moderately fast 80-85mm lenses have long been among my
> favorites in 35mm photography.
>
> The 85mm f/2 would be used pretty much the same as the
> aforementioned 135mm lens, although portraits would seldom be taken
> wide open, as f/2.8-4 is about as shallow as I usually care to go,
> in terms of depth of field. Still, the f/2 lens would probably make
> focusing a snap, and even though I don't usually shoot at f/2 or
> faster, it's nice to know the option's there.
>
> Oh, one last question (and it has nothing to do with short teles) --
> are there any hidden drawbacks to the use of one of those adapters
> in an OM-1, that allow the camera to function normally with 1.5v
> silver oxide batteries (instead of evil, 1.35v mercury batteries)?
>
> < 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 >
|