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

[Ko.Fe.]

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]

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]

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]

I like my 90mm Tamron macro with OM mount.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thank you for quick replies.
I think, I'll try the Zuiko AUTO-Zoom 75-150mm f/4.0.

 

[MattKing]

Thank you for quick replies.
I think, I'll try the Zuiko AUTO-Zoom 75-150mm f/4.0.

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 ....

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

135mm is very intimate whether you shoot a human or nature portrait...meantime try score a OM-1n or OM-4ti.

 

[AgX]

What about using a 2x extender?

 

[thuggins]

it just doesn't makes sense to pay $200-500 for tele prime lens....

Ko.

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.

 

[Bill Burk]

What about using a 2x extender?

Perfect advice! I spent much time with a virtual 100mm f/2.8 and it only cost me $15 brand new (1975 dollars).

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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 . . .

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]

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.

 

[Jeff L]

Another vote for the Zuiko 100 2.8. I think I paid around $80 or so.
I have seen Zuiko 135 3.5's for well under $100 too.

 

[wblynch]

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.

 

[baachitraka]

$100 is little too much for f/3.5, in fact even for f/2.8.