I've always been a little confused aabout all of them too, so I did a
little research, using the eSIF and Gary's lens tests and the hearsay
I've picked up on the list.
35-70/3.6 - The first, and only full Zuiko 35-70mm. Also the biggest and
heaviest cause it's the fastest at 70mm. Really clever, unique design
where the lens gets longer as the focal length gets shorter. Thus the
slip on lens hood that attaches behind the part that moves with zooming,
actually varies the angle it covers to be effective at all focal
lengths. The only lens I know of that does this. At the time it came
out, it was important also because it vastly outperformed the Nikon
43-86mm zoom, proving short zooms could be competitive with 50mm
standard lenses and giving Oly a 'rep' boost.
35-70/4 auto-focus is an oddity with complete, but poor, autofocus built
entirely into the lens.
The 'S Zuiko's were all produced as consumer, rather than full quality
Zuikos
35-70/4 - Cheaper, slower, 7 elements in 7 groups vs. the 10-8 of the
f3.6, yet essentially the same size and weight.
35-70/3.5-4.5 - Not quite as good optically as the f3/6, but 2/3 the
length, half the weight and focuses closer than the f3.6. A unique
design where the f-stop stays the same throughout the zoom range when
set to f4.5 or higher .
35-70/3.5-4.8 - Inferior optically to the rest and not a true Zuiko, as
it was made by Cosina to go with the OM2000.
35-80/2.8 - One of the later designs when Olympus was pushing the
performance envelope. Faster and with a longer zoom ratio make it bigger
and quit a bit heavier than the f3.6. Reputed to be a superb performer.
In summary, it appears the only ones worth considering are:
35-70/3.5-4.5 - Tiny with close focus, Skip Williams average price $133.
35-70/3.6 - Medium size and weight. Gary says on his test page
"Primary differences from 35-80mm f/2.8 Zuiko are that it requires f/11
for optimum performance (vs. f/8) and isn't as useable wide open." SW
avg. price $222
35-80/2.8 - Biggest and heaviest - and best performing, with
longer focal range. SW avg. price $859
I bought an f3.6 new in the late 70s and think it's an excellent lens.
At first I worried it wouldn't be as good as a prime lens, but soon quit
using the 50/1.8 SC I got with my first OM-1 and used the zoom as my
primary lens. Looking at Gary's lens tests, I see why, the zoom is a
much better lens!
The f2.8 looks like a cool lens, but I can't believe the performance is
worth the price. I have a Tamron 35-105/2.8 aspherical that's a superb
lens, the same weight, very slightly bigger in return for extra focal
length, and cost about $300.
Moose
Brian Swale wrote:
Hi Moose,
Thanks for the info.
I could not track down any 3.8, <snip> so was not sure if there was an error
there or not.
Brian
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 21:22:49 -0800
From: dreammoose <dreammoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] Zuiko 35 - 70 f/3.8 on the bay
Everything about the picture is right for a 35-70/3.6, I held mine up
against the monitor, except the rubber focusing grip, which looks like
< 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 >
|