85 - 100mm non-OM prime for Olympus OM-10.

Ko.Fe.

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
3,209
Location
MiltON.ONtario
Format
Digital
Forgive me, I'm not familiar with slr systems. Just EOS guy

Purchased low cost, but working nicely Oly OM-10 with OM. Zuiko 50 1.8 on it. I want to try some portraits with this camera.
But to my surprise OM. Zuiko portrait tele primes are very expensive. Is here any non-OM, less expensive, 80 to 100 mm primes available in this mount?
Or any compact, affordable zooms in this range, may be?
I paid $80 for OM-10 and 50 1.8 with Hoya UV filter, it just doesn't makes sense to pay $200-500 for tele prime lens....

Thank you,
Ko.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,780
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
I can only think of the vivitar S1 105, and 90mm macro, dont know what either runs, you can get an idea from E bay. Second thought, a T2 or T4 adptor lens might be avialble.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,780
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
forgot Soligor with made C/D 100, 2.0 100 3.5 and a 85/135 F 4 dual focal lens. The CD lens are the better lens.
 

mgb74

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
4,774
Location
MN and MA US
Format
Multi Format
I like my 90mm Tamron macro with OM mount.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,349
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Ko.Fe. said:
Thank you for quick replies.
I think, I'll try the Zuiko AUTO-Zoom 75-150mm f/4.0.
Click to expand...

You will like that lens, if you are working in decent light.

I prefer the two touch approach to "push-pull" types.

It is nicely compact.

I have an 85mm f/2 Zuiko lens which gets much more use, but still ....
 
OP
OP

Ko.Fe.

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
3,209
Location
MiltON.ONtario
Format
Digital
Sounds promising, Matt!
I just purchased this zoom lens under very reasonable price. Same filter size as my OM.Z 50 1.8.
 

Ulrich Drolshagen

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
532
Location
Germany
Format
Medium Format
I'd look for a 2,8/100. It's quite inexpensive and really good. And "Silvernoses" are less expensive than the later multicoated versions and my be even preferable for portraits.
 

mr rusty

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
827
Location
lancashire,
Format
Medium Format
Another vote for the 75-150 zuiko. I have one and it was one of the least expensive lenses I have bought. I use it regularly and have always been happy with the result. Ok not that fast but so what. How often do you need to be wide open. Particularly with e.g. 400 film.
 

Dali

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,861
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Multi Format
The Zuiko 75-150 is a very nice lens but you could also try to find a 135mm lens. A lot of third-party manufacturer did some and even a Zuiko 135mm should not be that expensive.
 

Les Sarile

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
3,425
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Format
35mm
Ko.Fe. said:
Forgive me, I'm not familiar with slr systems. Just EOS guy

I paid $80 for OM-10 and 50 1.8 with Hoya UV filter, it just doesn't makes sense to pay $200-500 for tele prime lens....

Thank you,
Ko.
Click to expand...

Actually makes sense since the lens ultimately determines technical quality more than the body. As an EOS guy, you may have heard of the Canon 'L' lenses . . .
 

baachitraka

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
3,570
Location
Bremen, Germany.
Format
Multi Format
135mm f/3.5 is cheaper compare to 135mm f/2.8. I paid €48 for f/2.8 but never used it. Also I got Vivitar 135mm f/2.8, if you are interested you can take Vivitar for €30 which have no focus grip.
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,335
Format
4x5 Format
Or 135mm f/3.5

I mention a lens outside your mm range because maybe it will fall in your price range.

I "grew up" with a Pentax 105mm f/2.8 and always felt it was a great portrait lens... (and now I use an OM 85mm f/2 but that's expensive as you say). And I always felt 135mm was "too long". But I'm learning my lesson...

I saw some negatives my buddy's father took with an old Pentax 135mm f/3.5 and his shots (available light portraits of my friend's family - so everyone I knew) were a pleasure to see. I'm borrowing that 135mm lens now (as his father passed and my buddy doesn't use it). It's a good telephoto lens to have for an SLR.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,349
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
baachitraka said:
135mm f/3.5 is cheaper compare to 135mm f/2.8. I paid €48 for f/2.8 but never used it. Also I got Vivitar 135mm f/2.8, if you are interested you can take Vivitar for €30 which have no focus grip.
Click to expand...

The Zuiko 135mm f/3.5 lens was my only longer focal length lens for the first several years that I owned Olympus OM equipment, and I was always happy with it.

It is very compact, and as such, is great for travelling.
 

baachitraka

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
3,570
Location
Bremen, Germany.
Format
Multi Format
135mm is very intimate whether you shoot a human or nature portrait...meantime try score a OM-1n or OM-4ti.
 

thuggins

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
1,144
Location
Dallas, TX
Format
Multi Format
Ko.Fe. said:
it just doesn't makes sense to pay $200-500 for tele prime lens....

Ko.
Click to expand...

Wow! If the Zuiko 100f2.8 and 135f3.5 are going for $200-$500 I can retire. Zuiko lenses command a premium because they are very good - among the best lenses ever made. And since the lens determines the quality of the image it is worth spending a little extra to get good glass.
 
OP
OP

Ko.Fe.

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
3,209
Location
MiltON.ONtario
Format
Digital
Les Sarile said:
Actually makes sense since the lens ultimately determines technical quality more than the body. As an EOS guy, you may have heard of the Canon 'L' lenses . . .
Click to expand...

I owned OM.Zuiko 50 1.4 and 28 3.5 both very affordable vintage like lenses.
I do have 50L and 100L, those are relatively new, still in production lenses, with ultra-fast AF and weather sealing.

Purchased OM 70-150 F4 today for $40 to play with it. Seems to be really small comparing to my 70-200 F4 L.

I'm not looking for another high-end SLR kit, OM-10 is just for fun.

EOS + L is no fun, it is workout
 

dynachrome

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
1,770
Format
35mm
I have two examples of the 100/2.8 Zuiko, a 90/2.8 Vivitar Macro (goes to 1:1), a Tamron 90/2.5 52BB, a 135/2.8 Vivitar Close Focusing (goes to 1:2), a 135/2.5 Tamron Adaptall II (focuses to 3 feet), 135/2.5 and 2.8 Vivitar TX lenses, a 135/2.8 Vivitar Fixed Mount and a 135/3.5 Zuiko. For an adult portrait the Zuiko 100/2.8 is fine. For a small child either of the macro lenses would be good and the Close Focusing 135 is also suitable. You can also get a 135 and attach a short automatic extension tube.
 

wblynch

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
1,697
Location
Mission Viejo
Format
127 Format
I am also a big fan of the 75-150/4.0

Pull out that lens hood when using it outdoors !

The Zuiko 75-150 looks much better at 75 than any 35-70 zoom I've used, at 70.

I passed up a Zuiko 135/3.5 for $35 a year or two ago, thinking I wanted an f/2.8. It ended up I never got either one. I'm shocked if the f/3.5 is getting over $100.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

baachitraka

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
3,570
Location
Bremen, Germany.
Format
Multi Format
$100 is little too much for f/3.5, in fact even for f/2.8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…