Best OM 'standard' zoom?

[OlyMan]

I've been an Olympus OM user for more years than I care to remember, but I've never bought into their zoom lenses. I'm aware they did a few in the 35-70 range (plus the pricey 35-80 F/2.8...not gonna happen), I was wondering if any emerged as clear favourites? The ones I know of are:

• S Zuiko Zoom 35-70mm/F3.5-4.5
• S Zuiko Zoom 35-70mm/F3.5-4.8 (think this was a Cosina, launched with the OM-2000)
  
• Zuiko AUTO Zoom 35-70mm/F3.6
  
• S Zuiko Zoom 35-70mm/F4

My prejudice tells me to avoid the Cosina zoom, but I could be doing it an injustice. Through no reason other than the 49mm filter thread means instant compatibility with my existing filters, I'm leaning towards the 35-70mm/F3.5-4.5.

Any thoughts guys?

Thanks
OlyMan

 

[faberryman]

The 35-70mm f3.6 is generally considered the best.

 

[BAC1967]

I have the S Zuiko MC Autozoom f/4 35-70mm, I have not tried any of the others that you listed. I'm not usually a big fan of zoom lenses but I do like this one. I don't think I have ever met a Zuiko lens I didn't like. I have owned a few Cosina lenses that I didn't like, I can't remember why, I just know that name leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Olympus OM-2n by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

These are a few photos I shot with it the S Zuiko MC Autozoom f/4 35-70mm.

Rachael & Vera in the Sun by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

Assumption Abbey by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

 

[Gerry M]

I have the 35-70/3.5-4.5 and the 35-70/3.6. In my experience, there is no contest, the 3.6 is in a different class. Upper class, that is.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I have the S Zuiko MC Autozoom f/4 35-70mm, I have not tried any of the others that you listed. I'm not usually a big fan of zoom lenses but I do like this one. I don't think I have ever met a Zuiko lens I didn't like. ...

Wow, Bryan - those photos are making me rethink my preferences on Zuiko OM lenses. Until now, I hadn't wanted to get anything slower than f/2.8, but that zoom certainly has quality.

 

[Svenedin]

I have used the OM system for 30 years. I must confess to a preference for primes over zooms but I do find zooms useful sometimes. Quite often I take pictures of ships that are moving (sometimes I am moving as well). A zoom enables me to crop as I take the picture rather than trying to enlarge a small portion of a negative later which with the small 35mm negative can lead to loss of quality. With moving subjects there is no time to swap primes (but I sometimes use 2 bodies with different length lenses). I also like zooms for hiking in high mountains -it reduces weight and bulk. I have the 35-70mm f3.5/4.5 and the 35-70mm f4. The f4 is 380g and takes a 55mm filter but the f3.5/4.5 is 190g and uses the 49mm filter that my primes use. So my f4 is rarely used now due to bulk and weight and I find that I can take out the f3.5/4.5 and it is scarcely heavier than a prime. The f3.5/4.5 also has a close focus feature that the f4 and the f3.6 do not have. I did use the f4 for years before I bought the f3.5/4.5. The f3.6 is a bit heavier still at 400g and also takes a 55mm filter. Watch out for zooms that are "sloppy" -heavily used with loose focussing. They get like that eventually and are far too easy to mess up focus. I would not bother with the f3.5/4.8. It was an entry level lens bundled with OM2000.

 

[nsurit]

My preference is for the 35-70mm f3.6, however tend to use the 35-105mm Zuiko more often when not using a fixed focal length lens. Bill Barber

 

[Ed Sawyer]

The 2.8 is king of course, and worth seeking out, really. the 3.6 would be 2nd best.

 

[Svenedin]

The 2.8 is king of course, and worth seeking out, really. the 3.6 would be 2nd best.

I'm not sure the f2.8 is "King" exactly. It depends what you want it for. 690g is a lot to lug around and it's bulky compared to only 190g for the f3.5/4.5.

 

[Dali]

F4 35-70 Zuiko OM, the best kept secret...

 

[wiltw]

The 35-70mm f3.6 is generally considered the best.

^^^ best of the 35-70mm for OM

 

[OlyMan]

Thanks for your considered thoughts. The photos look stunning.

Guess I need to decide whether the extra weight and cost of the constant F/3.6 is justifiable for my needs and likely usage. The 35-70mm/F3.5-4.5 is cheap and easy to get hold of whereas the F/3.6 is less so. On reflection I think maybe I'll buy the cheap one to test the water regarding how much I'm likely to use it.

If I take to the experience I'll look out for a good F/3.6.

 

[ac12]

The 35-105 would be a great general purpose lens.
With a bit more reach than the 35-70, I could keep the 35-105 on the camera for 95% of my shooting.

 

[faberryman]

The 35-105 would be a great general purpose lens.
With a bit more reach than the 35-70, I could keep the 35-105 on the camera for 95% of my shooting.

I tend to favor the wides, and often carry just the 28-48mm which is not much bigger than the 50mm.

 

[Svenedin]

I personally think the 3.5/4.5 is a good choice. In the UK certainly it is not that easy to find and is relatively expensive -the f4 is the common one and there are loads of examples to buy. See how you get on with a zoom. The 3.5/4.5 is on my camera right now having just shot a whole roll with it. The OM system was made to be light and compact. I think it goes against the design ethos to use heavy zooms on it.

 

[mr rusty]

F4 35-70 Zuiko OM, the best kept secret...

this

if it has a weakness it's barrel distortion, but sometimes that can be used creatively https://www.photrio.com/forum/index.php?media/the-albert.26724/

 

[OlyMan]

I personally think the 3.5/4.5 is a good choice. In the UK certainly it is not that easy to find and is relatively expensive -the f4 is the common one and there are loads of examples to buy. See how you get on with a zoom. The 3.5/4.5 is on my camera right now having just shot a whole roll with it. The OM system was made to be light and compact. I think it goes against the design ethos to use heavy zooms on it.

Funny you should say that...best deal I've found so far on eBay is from Germany. UK prices are OTT. There's a few in the States for a reasonable price but I've noticed that shipping anything from the States has suddenly got ludicrously expensive for some reason. There was a particular OM10 brochure I was interested in a few weeks ago being sold from the States but the seller wanted more for shipping to the UK ($15 iirc!!) than what he wanted for the brochure ($8 or thereabouts). Holy cow, have a word with yourself, it's just a brochure! Looking at other items for sale in the States, this pricing seems typical, increasing exponentially with heavier items. Crazy.

 

[mnemosyne]

I was in the same position as the OP some time ago agonizing over the standard zooms options. The comments I read at the time were similar to what I read here. I finally opted for the 35-70/3.5-4.5 and like it very much. I find it to be compact, lightweight and sharp. With "sharp" I mean that I cannot detect any difference in sharpness to my OM prime lenses in normal use. The close up function and the standard filter thread size are also very nice. I paid 50 EUR for mine in mint condition from a dealer in Germany.

 

[Svenedin]

Yes, I've seen some reasonable prices for various OM lenses from Germany and Austria (despite the weakness of Sterling against the Euro). You could also try some of the specialist camera shops that are not on eBay: Ffordes.com, Cameraworld.co.uk etc. I am quite reluctant to use eBay for expensive lenses -I've had a few less than good experiences with lenses described as "mint" which are anything but. Having said that, I have bought some excellent ones from eBay too and when there have been problems I have got my money back. I much preferred it when I could walk into a shop and examine a lens there and then but those days are gone.

Postage from the USA is genuinely expensive -I have friends out there.

Some pictures of the f3.5/4.5 and f4 on my camera with a comparison to a 50mm f1.4 (if you haven't got one of those get one, much nicer IMHO than the f1.8. It took me nearly 30 years of using the OM system to stop being mean and buy the f1.4!).

 

[OlyMan]

Great photos thanks for sharing. That decided it: I've just dropped the €30+€10 shipping on the 3.5/4.5 from a dealer in Germany. Looks really tidy and comes with the front and rear caps.

Some pictures of the f3.5/4.5 and f4 on my camera with a comparison to a 50mm f1.4 (if you haven't got one of those get one, much nicer IMHO than the f1.8. It took me nearly 30 years of using the OM system to stop being mean and buy the f1.4!).

You as well? I kept telling myself I couldn't justify the cost until one day I found one bolted to an OM2SP that I was looking to buy. I only found out after purchase that being one of the last with the 1.1 million+ serial number means it has the best coatings, like the MIJ 1.8's. Though don't ask me what difference that makes in any real life scenario.

 

[Svenedin]

That's a good price. Hope you enjoy using the lens.

Haha yes me as well. Exactly the same reason, could not justify the cost! I have only had the 50mm f1.4 for a couple of weeks but I already love it and wish I hadn't waited so long. Funny, I noticed one on a camera I wasn't very interested in and nearly took a punt to get another f1.4!

Here is a picture I took with the f1.4, indoors in natural light with HP5+. I happened to have my camera with me. It's a shopkeeper's cat. 8"x10" print.

 

[OlyMan]

The cat is gorgeous and a bit of a poser lol. I've just recently dropped an OOD role of FP4+ in my OM40; the intention actually is to use it with this zoom and see how I get on. I've no great experience with B&W having only shot about three rolls ever (none at all in the last decade), and I think I'm still developing my B&W eye. I've seen many a natural light B&W portrait by the greats, including famous OM bastion Jane Bown, and I always think wow I could do that, but mine attempts so far always look a bit bland.

 

[Svenedin]

I'm the opposite and hardly ever use colour film. When I do it's usually slide film. I know what you mean by light. When I was a kid I watched the film "The Third Man". I was amazed by the cinematography and frame after frame that would have made incredible still pictures, all in black and white. I wanted to be able to take pictures like that but I never have to that degree of excellence. I also love paintings by the "Dutch Old Master's". Again, masters of light whether from a window, a candle etc.

 

[OlyMan]

Yeah my heart is with slides really, my dad was a slide-tape enthusiast who would make themed shows with two projectors synchronised with music, so I take after him I think. He started shooting in the 1950s and developed his own (B&W) prints and portraits, but after experimenting with slide film in the 1960s I don't recall him ever going back to prints. He wanted to see the results of his work and of his expenditure on decent cameras and lenses shown in all its glory on a 6-8 foot wide screen, not on 6"x4" / 10"x8" prints.

 

[dynachrome]

The only one of the 35-70 Zuikos I have now is the Cosina-made one. It's sitting on one of my two OM2000s. This lens is not half bad if closed down even a little. Part of its reputation may come from the fact that focusing it in all but the brightest light is not so easy. If switched the lens to an OM2S and installed a plain matte or grid screen, focusing would be easier in lower light. I have a very nice 35-105/3.5-4.5 Zuiko one-touch zoom which I like. There are also many nice non-Zuiko lenses in this range which come in OM mount. These include the 35-70/3.5 Vivitar Fixed Mount, the 35-70/2.8-3.8 Vivitar Fixed Mount, the 35-70/2.5-3.5 Soligor/PMC/Access, the second version of the 35-70/3.5 Tamron Adaptall II, the 28-90/2.8-3.5 Vivitar Series 1, the 28-105 Vivitar Series 1, the 28-85/2.8-3.8 Vivitar (really a varifocal, not a zoom) and the 24-70 Vivitar Series 1. Some of these are easier to find than others. I still hope to get the f/3.6 Zuiko. On a sunny day I like carrying three Zuikos: 35/2.8, 50/3.5 Macro, 100/2.8.