I've always found the most useful set of primes to be a 20mm, 35mm, 85mm, & 200mm. You can cover just about everything. If you can afford them the 20mm f2 & 35mm f2 are great lenses for night street photography. Olympus zooms are not as good as their primes, they are OK for family stuff.
Basic set of lenses for OM's
-
A
- Thread starter naxxfish
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikon 400mm 5.6 ED Ai
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Two Durst L184 colorhead enlargers with motorized focus and negative carriers
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale Kodak HIE BW Infrared film
- Started by romosoho
-
For Sale 90mm f/4.5 Caltar II-N (= Rodenstock Grandagon-N) in Copal 1
- Started by Steve Goldstein
Forum statistics
So the consensus is we all like a different set but the 50 is more or less constant.
It is only constant because 1) the OP already has a 50mm lens, and 2) most film cameras are sold with a 50mm lens. Otherwise, as I think one poster already recommended it, I would suggest a 24/35/85 trio.
OK.
There isn't, and will never be, a consensus! ;-?
To the OP, nobody here really has a clue what's best for you.
I'm sure you have a vague idea of which focal lengths you like. From there decide if you prefer lighter, more compact and cheaper or faster,more expensive and heavier.
Olympus were good at ensuring standard filter sizes across the range and it may be useful for you to have consistency there too...
Most of the Zuiko primes are good and some are available at very low cost which can give you the opportunity to try a few combinations until you find the one you like...
... at least until you get the urge to try new toys again! ;-)
That is why I suggested he run ExposurePlot on his digital image folder to find out which focal lengths he most often uses with his digital zooms.
For a start off kit, you can do a lot worse than getting a 28/2.8 50/1.8 and a 135/3.5 Once you have that kit you can always build on them. The 21/3.5 is a rare beast these days but outstanding, as is the 35/2.8. Likewise the 85/2 and the 135/2.8. The 85mm is almost as rare as the 21mm but it was also damn good. Anything longer, 200/4 and the 300/4.5 are like all olympus prime leses - very good (with the exception of the 28/3.5, let me just say it - isn't the best).
Last edited:
The 135mm f3.5 is a tiny lens and I like it for that reason. It is also fine optically.
In my collection, 28mm f/3.5 is one awesome performer. Shot some 20 rolls in Italy using OM-1n, 28mm f/3.5 (without hood) and APX 100 and will post some photos in this evening.
If you are a patience collector, wait for f/2.0 and some time ago I saw 21mm f/2.0 went for 200 euros.
All I can say is no Zuiko is a bad performer but some need to stop down.
Get the 200f5. It is only 2/3 stop slower and it is TINY. I have both the f4 and f5 and the f4 never gets to travel. But, sometimes it gets to go to the zoo.
There have been some great suggestions here and any Zuiko lens is a good choice. There just are no bad Zuikos.
But none of us knows how or what you like to shoot. As someone noted above, the 28-48 zoom is a lovely little lens, but a lot of my 28mm work is building interiors where the f4 becomes a real hindrance. Probably 90% of my shots are around 35mm and the 35f2 is a gorgeous lens. But I never carry it as it is huge next to the 35f2.8, and about the same size as the 35-70f3.6. There is the 90f2, which God created on the 8th day (after he had gotten practice). But 90mm is a really awkward focal length for me, and though I force myself to carry it, it's not very often (the 100mm has never been used). Architectural details are always nice with the 135s and 200s, if you are into that. But you have to know all those details to make the right decision for you.
That being said, my standard travel kit it the 28f2, 40f2, 135f3.5, and the 1.5X T-CON. All of these have 49mm threads, so everything fits with no problem. The T-CON turns the 40mm to a 60mm (with some vignetting) and the 135mm to a 200mm. As I recall, this kit (minus the T-CON) was the one Maitani carried.
Actually, I would use a 35-70 or 35-105 as my normal lens, just as I do with my Nikon. With the 35-105, I might get away without carrying any other lens. Although for travel I would still bring the 24, for extra coverage.
Come to think of it, I may just get one of these two lenses to use as my normal, and replace the 50 on the OM.
Maybe the same as my Nikon, 2-lenses; 24 + 35-105.
Come to think of it, I may just get one of these two lenses to use as my normal, and replace the 50 on the OM.
Maybe the same as my Nikon, 2-lenses; 24 + 35-105.
Last edited:
Thanks everyone for your input! So yes, I get you don't know what focal lengths I like to shoot with - but broadly speaking I was after something good in the 3 categories I mentioned at the start. It sounds like going for Zuiko is a safe bet in most cases.
I'd be really interested to see those shots - partly because that looks like a lens I'm going to hunt for, but also because I'll probably want to use it with APX 100!
So in summary, before looking at replacing the 50mm, I'm going to look for a 28mm and 135mm Zuiko. That should cover most bases to begin with, and I can build on it from there. Tbh I will probably want to build up more of the wide side of things. Have been playing with a trip 35 and quite like the 40mm lens!
I'd be really interested to see those shots - partly because that looks like a lens I'm going to hunt for, but also because I'll probably want to use it with APX 100!
So in summary, before looking at replacing the 50mm, I'm going to look for a 28mm and 135mm Zuiko. That should cover most bases to begin with, and I can build on it from there. Tbh I will probably want to build up more of the wide side of things. Have been playing with a trip 35 and quite like the 40mm lens!
I have a 24 mm 2.8 , 50 mm 1.8, 100 mm 2.8, 135 mm 2.8 and 180 mm 2.8.
The most used is the 50, then the 24 after that the 135 mm.
The 100 and 180 I used rarely.
Btw I'm moving over to Nikon F mf lenses so above collection I will offer for sale or trade within the next few days.
The most used is the 50, then the 24 after that the 135 mm.
The 100 and 180 I used rarely.
Btw I'm moving over to Nikon F mf lenses so above collection I will offer for sale or trade within the next few days.
Nice 3-lens kit.
FYI. On the 135, the f/3.5 uses the kinda standard 49mm filter and the f/2.8 I think uses a 52mm filter.
People that want to standardize on the 49mm filter size, would go with the f/3.5 lens.
I wanted the extra 1/2 stop, so went with the f/2.8 lens.
FYI. On the 135, the f/3.5 uses the kinda standard 49mm filter and the f/2.8 I think uses a 52mm filter.
People that want to standardize on the 49mm filter size, would go with the f/3.5 lens.
I wanted the extra 1/2 stop, so went with the f/2.8 lens.
MattKing
Moderator
The 35mm f/2 also uses 52mm filters. It is worth it, but I've often considered getting a 35mm f/2.8 lens as well.
An 85mm f2 lives on my Om1n. It's my portrait camera.
I have a 28mm f3.5 and (ace) 50mm f1.8. Both are tiny and cheap. I love how the camera handles with these.
I'm just selling my 50mm f1.4 MC. It's a very nice example but not really needed. I wasn't wild about the 35mm f2.8. I just prefer my rangefinder or compact camera than the OM with that lens.
I have a 28mm f3.5 and (ace) 50mm f1.8. Both are tiny and cheap. I love how the camera handles with these.
I'm just selling my 50mm f1.4 MC. It's a very nice example but not really needed. I wasn't wild about the 35mm f2.8. I just prefer my rangefinder or compact camera than the OM with that lens.
Last edited:
:-0
Yep. One lens to rule them all.
(I wouldn't buy the OM 40mm at it's typical, extortional price)
MattKing
Moderator
You are right about the 35mm f/2, and I would expect about the 135mm f/2.8.
I knew that, so why did I say 52mm ???
Because I said 52mm without looking at my lens, to see the filter diameter ... duh.
my 3 lens OM kit has been 35/2.8, 50/1.8, 100/2.8 for quite a while. I could probably be very happy using the 80/2 (or is it 85??) and no others. That "slightly longer than normal" lens is a real sweet spot for me and the way I look at things.
Three lens kit? Oh, guess it is possible. Truth of the matter is that when I put a kit together it usually has three lens and probably a set of auto extension tubes. It may not be the same three lenses, but three is a good number. Occasionally it will be a one lens kit. Choices.
My suggestion is: the advantage of the OM system is the compactness and lightness. Therefore i'd suggest you to pick the smallest and lightest lenses you can get. As for the focal lenghts, that depends on your preference:
21mm if you really like a deep wideangle effect
24mm if you can't afford the 21mm
28mm if you want a normal, noticeable wideangle effect
35mm for a wideangle effect that is not noticeable by common people, so it works as a "normal" lens but with wider angle of view
50mm for general purpose (i'd say this is the most important lens)
85mm for general portrait purpose use
100/105mm for a more affordable alternative to 85mm lenses
135mm for a more compact alternative to 200mm lenses
200mm for model, full-body shots.
By the way, try getting a kit that 'skips' each lens on the focal list.
So, if you get a 21, it would be 21-28-50-100. Or 28-50-100
or if you get a 35, for example 35-85-135.
That way, the angle of view change is more pronounced.
I think both "28-50-100" and "35-85-135" are excellent combinations.
Bump my pervious post...
18/21/24: Only for special cases. Yes, including 24mm :-|
28/50/100: Best I(affordable)
35/85/135: Best II(have to wait for 85mm, I have paid €250)
2.0/2.8/3.5: You may try to get the later SN's but then difference may not be noticeable.
Also the lens hood. I have generic hood for 35/50.
18/21/24: Only for special cases. Yes, including 24mm :-|
28/50/100: Best I(affordable)
35/85/135: Best II(have to wait for 85mm, I have paid €250)
2.0/2.8/3.5: You may try to get the later SN's but then difference may not be noticeable.
Also the lens hood. I have generic hood for 35/50.
OK, so my previous responses have been coloring within the lines. Now lets get outside the lines and see if that helps any. Assuming money is not an issue, probably 24mm f2.8 or f2, 50mm f1.2 and 85mm f2. Now lets assuming money is somewhat of a concern and the OP wants to stick his toe in the water rather than diving in and immediately going swimming. In that case, the 28mm f2.8 or 3.5 will cover the short end, the current 50mm f1.8 will do for the normal range and the 135mm f2.8 or 3.5 will cover the slightly longer needs. He has stated an interest in macro so I would suggest he look at the Vivitar 2X macro focusing teleconverter, which lets him get really close and also gives him a short telephoto when couple to his 50mm f1.8. As his kits grows I would suggest a set of auto extension tubes. If in the US, he could probably get the t 2X, set of tubes and a 28mm f3.5 for around $100 if he were patient. Inexpensive/cheap does not equal bad. Bill Barber
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |