Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: ZUIKO 35-105MM 35-105/3.5-4.5

Subject: [OM] Re: ZUIKO 35-105MM 35-105/3.5-4.5
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:12:51 -0800
WayneS wrote:
> At 05:01 PM 11/10/2008, you wrote:
>   
>> I have been offered this lens, a Zuiko 35-105MM 35-105/3.5-4.5, and was 
>> wondering if anyone has used this one and how well it performs? I would 
>> appreciate any and all response, good or bad. TIA. Smitty                    
>>                                                                           
>>     
>
> This lens is not bad but not super exceptional either. 
I would have put it "This lens is very good but not super exceptional." 
It's the lens mounted on the OM-1 with film in it at the moment, so I 
must like it. :-)   
> The 35-80/2.8 is the latest and best zoom in that range, with the later 
> coatings. Of the lenses I kept, the 35-80/2.8 is one of them. An exceptional 
> zoom. The 35-105 has the unique close focus feature, so a perfectly 
> acceptable lens.
>   
For the reasons below, I've never owned a 35-80/2.8. Absent experience 
with whatever magic it might possess that simple resolution and contrast 
comparisons don't reveal, it has always appeared to me, based on Gary's 
tests, that the two lenses are comparable from f5.6. They wander a bit 
as to which has the better grade, but it was not a paired comparison, so 
1/3 or 2/3 grade differences aren't significant.

The reasons I have a 35-105 I've never had the 35-80 fall into two 
categories:

I. Non performance
  a. Weight
  b. Size
  c. Cost

II. Performance
  a. Not long enough for all the penalties in I.
  b. Doesn't focus anywhere near close enough. I will never be happy 
with a lens that focuses only to 1:8 as a general purpose lens, which is 
what a 35-70/80/105 should be.

In fact, the one characteristic of the 35-105 that consistently bugs me 
is the lack of adequate close-up capability.  The way the Close Focus 
ring works is by simply moving the whole lens forward a few mm. Since 
that distance is a greater % of 35mm than of 105mm, closest focus 
(greatest magnification) is at 35mm, not really ideal.

Also whatever all the many lenses and ads for them of the MF era may 
say, 1:4 ain't macro, just sort of close. I'm also under the impression 
that optical performance falls close-up. I can't really back that up, 
but whatever the reason, I never seemed to get particularly good 
close-up images with it.

The Tamron 35-105/2.8 shares this problem of insufficient close focus. 
The Tamron 35-80/2.8-3.8 is a little short, but:

Small
Light
Cheap
Focuses to 1:2.5.
Does so at the long end.
Is nice and sharp near and far.

I find it generally the best compromise of features and performance for 
a walking around lens.

None of these lenses are quite wide and long enough. 24/2.8 in one 
pocket and 200/5 in another is one solution. :-)  The Tamron 28-200, is 
another, odder solution, light and plasticky, but not bad as a walking 
around lens. Doesn't get close enough, though. The Kiron 28-210 is 
another, metal, big, heavy, but optically very good. Enough heft to feel 
good with a Winder, 1:4' different, more serious sort of walking around.

Moose

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz