>I am in somewhat of a quandary here, Nathan. If you have never owned an
>Olympus lens, then the little voice on one shoulder is telling me to
>recommend a real dog, since then you can progress up to the real gems. The
>guy on the other shoulder is telling me that, on the contrary, you will then
>only conclude that Olympus glass is little better than jamjars.
The 50/1.8 is THE starting point for OMZ glass, for film or digital.
Better than a jamjar, and just about as cheap :)
>You have heard AG wax lyrical about the 35-80/2.8 - I can't speak for that
>one, and you might be looking looking hard for a long time.
John H has two for sale right now, but they aren't cheap. Only worth
getting if you are a die hard OM user and collector.
>You might persuade me to wax lyrical about some other lenses, and less than
>lyrical about some highly prized (and priced) Olympus lenses - except that
>in using them on a digital body, you are automatically handicapping the
>lenses, because you are not getting to see (for instance) the edge-to-edge
>performance of the wide angles, and focusing them will be somewhat harder
>than on a film SLR body.
Not entirely true, the OMZ 21/3.5 has remained a sought after lens by
full frame Canon DSLR users due to its ability to outperform Canon
lenses of the same focal length. Plus, it costs less than $500.
>So in honesty, if you have come so far without trying them, and intend to
>use them only on a digital body, I wouldn't bother.
>Piers
I tend to agree here, unless you're going to use the glass on an OM
camera, I wouldn't fool with it.
Bill Pearce also mentions the 21/2 and 28/2. The 28/2 may just be the
best of the OMZs, and it makes a handy "normal" lens on micro 4/3rds
cameras, but again should really be used on an OM body (when using on
my E-410 I found it to be...ordinary. On my OM-2n it is
extraordinary). The 21/2 is one of the few remaining OMZs that I have
not owned or tried but would like to. Way too expensive for using on
anything less than "full frame."
>PS But that might change when you get your M9. The Kodachrome I just
>mentioned in another message was exposed in M and LTM bodies, with OM 18 and
>28 glass :-)
Piers, am I reading this correctly? You adapted OMZ glass to a Leica
M rangefinder? How did you do this, and manage accurate rangefinder
coupling? I'm really curious.
-Nic
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|