Olympus OM Zuiko lenses and ridiculous prices?

darinwc

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Messages
3,146
Location
Sacramento,
Format
Multi Format
The fast olympus lenses are also much harder to find it seems than canon or nikon. I think pentax is in the same boat and even worse.. the A series lenses still have full functionality with the new digital slrs!
 

clayne

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
2,764
Location
San Francisc
Format
Multi Format
There's basically praise for just about all Japanese optics of that era:

Nikkor
Rokkor
Takumar
Zuiko
Hexanon
Canon

They all made great lenses (and if we were to really break it down, it might only be 3-4 actual manufacturers). Each cultist lens group establishes their liking and sticks with it. I'm a member of 2 cults: Nikkor and Rokkor, with a smidgen of Takumar. Commence the initiations now.
 

blockend

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,049
Location
northern eng
Format
35mm
Most of the bargain loopholes have been closed in recent years. There was a time when, if you avoided Nikon, Leica, Contax, Zeiss, you could bag a film outfit for a reasonable price. Now I'd struggle to suggest any branded manufacturer, or even the more high profile third party makes (Tamron SP, etc) to a new photographer on a tight budget. Zuiko were always niche compared to Nikon/Canon, I had an OM1 in the 1970's and only knew one other photographer with an Olympus, so prices are born out in rarity value. The sad fact is many of the cleaner examples of wide aperture lenses will be following the Leica example into collector's showcases, bumping prices further.
 

Xmas

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
6,398
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF
when people dumped their film cameras for DSLRs there was a glut of kit and lots of it was left in out houses or lofts and tips, you could get it for free if you wanted

Olympus only made about 10k 40mm lenses they were always expensive.

Canon and Nikon are churning out DSLRs robots are making them.

There are a lot of Ch people who can afford them.

My chum has a Canon DSLR he was using a Pentax- M (K mount) 5cm with an adapter... he wanted my 35mm a canon prime is expensive.

They will be dearer tomorrow.
 

Richard S. (rich815)

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2003
Messages
4,924
Location
San Francisco
Format
Multi Format
OP
OP

dugrant153

Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
419
Location
Coquitlam, B
Format
35mm
Appreciate all the responses. Guess it just came as sticker shock as I'm so used to finding "bargains" for the Nikon stuff I've been building up. Didn't think the Olympus was so popular. Then again, I'm a user so I guess I add to the situation!

I'm not looking for any crazy price discounts (like an F1.2 lens for $50 bucks or something) but was just surprised to see how well the prices have stayed up. This is considering the digital/film landscape and... I guess those lenses get popular as they're now used by a ton of DSLRs with adaptors.

Sounds like a 40mm F/2 will have to be passed on. Oh well. On to a decent wide. Maybe a 24mm F2.8 or 28mm F2....
 

Christiaan Phleger

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
1,213
Location
Hawaii
Format
35mm RF
Seriously consider the 28mm 2.8. Remarkable quality and still relatively a bargain. 28mm is a favorite length, I've got lots of Nikkors and others in 28mm and the Oly 28mm 2.8 continues to amaze me.
IMO the major makers put a lot of effort into the budget wides in the very late 1970's and early 1980's. The standard upgrade kit from the Compact SLR Era (Pentax ME, Olympus OM, Nikon FE, Canon AE-1) would be a 50mm, a tele-zoom and a compact light *not too fast* moderate wide. Up until the start of that era the 28's were usually a moderate slow f/3.5 OR a fast expensive f/2. Due to advances in lens design, faster computers and the market desire of the photography hobby boom of the mid to late 1970's, makers (nikon in particular) sank a lot of effort in designing the 28mm 2.8, in Nikon's case they went from the so-so Ai 28mm f/2.8 (which IMO was a hastily designed 28mm response to this Hobby market) to the stellar 28mm f/2.8 AIS with advanced optical design incorporating floating elements. The Olympus 28mm f/2.8 is Olympus response to this market, and it was launched about the same time. I think that the Ais has a margin in general but the Olympus is very close. To me it seems as Olympus got around not using floating elements by slightly favoring higher optical quality at the shorter focussing distance and compromised by allowing the distance focussing zones to be improved by stopping down. Just my POV from experience..
(As an aside, IMO I think the Carl Zeiss for Contax 28mm f/2.8 is a further example of this market, I've never used this lens but apparently its the Bee's Knees.)
 

250swb

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
1,529
Location
Peak District
Format
Multi Format
dugrant153 said:
Didn't think the Olympus was so popular. Then again, I'm a user so I guess I add to the situation!
Click to expand...

I think the price is high simply because Olympus lenses are good.

Everybody dropped their film system's because of digital. So when they come back into the market for lenses to use with their m4/3 cameras etc. there is no brand loyalty at work. So instead they look for quality, and if it isn't Leica they go for it's Olympus and Pentax not far behind.

Steve
 

baachitraka

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
3,553
Location
Bremen, Germany.
Format
Multi Format
I personally recommend 28mm f/3.5 zuiko. The only lens I have used to shoot in Italy last year. More over I have paid Euro 40 for it.
 

benjiboy

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
11,970
Location
U.K.
Format
35mm
The prices of Olympus lenses aren't ridiculous if you are selling them .
 

wblynch

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
1,697
Location
Mission Viejo
Format
127 Format
But still, the prices of Olympus Zuiko lenses, even now, are sheer bargains compared to brand new DSLR lenses.

If they can be adapted, they will find demand. Even the 50/1.8's that we got free with broken bodies or paid $5-$15 a couple of years ago are going for more than 50/1.4's used to.

Not long ago I remember laughing when I saw 50/1.4's selling for $50, thinking "who would pay that much?". Now look.
 

clayne

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
2,764
Location
San Francisc
Format
Multi Format
Any 50/1.4 from any of the major Japanese manufacturers is worth atleast 50$ just in usefulness and quality. When quality lenses are selling for 10$ that's just crazy.
 

darinwc

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Messages
3,146
Location
Sacramento,
Format
Multi Format

There are still some lenses that are reasonably priced. look for a 100mm f2.8, 35mm f2, 28mm f2.8, 24mm f2.8.
 

EdSawyer

Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
1,793
Format
Multi Format
If you buy any reasonably priced OM , the 24/2.8 is the one to have. Ironically, the 28/2.8 is the worst of the 3 OM 28s. The 28/2 is tops, then the 28/3.5, which is usually a bargain, and of course, tiny.
 

mopar_guy

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
1,173
Location
Washington,
Format
Multi Format
Today on eBay, a 600mm f6.5 F. Zuiko lens sold for $381 (the older single coated version). There are some bargains out there.
 

GarageBoy

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
992
Format
35mm

Shutterbug?

Seems to me, that since fewer pros used the OM system, fewer bought the expensive fast lenses, and thus there are fewer lying around.
Compare that to the truck loads of fast Nikon wides, etc
 

thuggins

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
1,144
Location
Dallas, TX
Format
Multi Format
EdSawyer said:
If you buy any reasonably priced OM , the 24/2.8 is the one to have. Ironically, the 28/2.8 is the worst of the 3 OM 28s. The 28/2 is tops, then the 28/3.5, which is usually a bargain, and of course, tiny.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I'm not sure what would qualify any of the three as "the worst". I've compared all three side by side and they all produce excellent results. The color rendering was slightly different but this is fairly common with differences in construction and coatings. The f3.5 is certainly the best deal, as folks tend to poo-poo "slow" lenses.
 

wblynch

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
1,697
Location
Mission Viejo
Format
127 Format
They are all great. Buy them all!

But seriously, I can not justify to myself spending more than $50 for obsolete technology. These things are old and fun to use because they are cheap but when the film hammer falls for good, I don't want to be stuck with thousands of dollars worth of paperweights.

Get the cheap ones and save the real money to buy something nice for your wife.
 

benjiboy

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
11,970
Location
U.K.
Format
35mm
Some people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
 

baachitraka

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
3,553
Location
Bremen, Germany.
Format
Multi Format
Well, my 34 years are obsolete on Yesterday.
 

Xmas

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
6,398
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF

well I did like Ben's quote few posts earlier
but the quote above is so wrong

the inflation is caused by D 'camera' owners with adapters buying cheap off brand antiques

If film should disappear you either
only need to buy a D ****** sorry and adapter or
sell the antiques at >>>>>>>>$

I use single coated and multi coated lenses for the difference in signature dependent on contrast of scenes and signature I want and I work with long scale mono film my sensor has long toes and shoulders not a sharp cut off like digital

Good investments are difficult to spot ~ for some but as Ben's penultimate post suggests it is hard if you don't have a bucket full of lenses already.
 

benjiboy

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
11,970
Location
U.K.
Format
35mm
Investments, that's not what photography's about anyone buying photographic equipment either analogue or digital gear as an investment is a fool, the reason to buy equipment is to use it and enjoy it, I have had much more value from my equipment in the joy of using it for many years than mere money could ever compensate me for.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

wblynch

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
1,697
Location
Mission Viejo
Format
127 Format

Well put
 

whojammyflip

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
186
Location
Wellesbourne, UK
Format
35mm
I tried out a OM1N (refurbished by Michael Spencer, so it was literally mint) with some OM lenses, and prefered to stick with Pentax kit instead. In particular, I have a modern 50/1.8 MIJ which was definitely less sharp than my Pentax M 50/1.7, which distinctly put me off the system. I found the 135/3.5 v sharp though, and the 28/2.8 only OK relative to my Pentax M 28/3.5 and K 24/2.8.

As for prices, you often see someone saying on Pentaxforums "lens prices are going up". But in my experience, with inflation considered, old lenses are falling in real terms. People tend not to want to pay more for a lens than the price they have seen it going for. Often, the people buying lenses on the great internet auction site end up selling it again, to try something else out. Equally, to be a bit morbid, there is a continual supply of lenses from photographers relatives auctioning stuff off, after they have departed planet earth. These relatives dont know what they are selling, take a bad photo, or just list the stuff as a bundle, which means there is a continual supply of cheap kit coming into the market. I reckon half this stuff gets picked up by traders who try selling it on at BIN prices of USD 1000 etc, and then give up, as they realise they have too much inventory.

For what its worth, I tracked the median price of Oly kit, and here are some results:
OM4, 78.2
OM4 Ti, 215.01
3.5/21, 111
f2/20, 514
f3.5/21, 248
2.0/24, 288.115
2.8/24, 106
2.0/28, 182.475
2.8/28, 42.23
3.5/28, 38
2.0/35, 128.61
2.8/35, 46.87
2.8/35 shift, 256
40/2, 280.41
1.2/50mm, 293.965
1.8/50, 19.7
1.4/50, 74.9
3.5/50, 63
1.2/55, 283.85
2.0/85, 164.04
2/100, 338.25
2.8/100, 81.515
3.5/135, 29.155
2.8/135, 34.3
2.8/180, 290.78
4/200, 42.25
200/5, 29
300/4.5, 153
Fl36, 73.35
Fl36r, 120
OM1, 43
OM1nMD-lens, 45.06
OM1MD, 31
OM2, 50.55
OM2n-lens, 51.05
OM2n Spot -lens, 46.255
OM2nMD, 33.59
screen 1-4n, 18.45

all prices in sterling...obviously, this neglects condition, so its only a guide to the fair price, and INCLUDE POSTAGE, as there are always people who try to bamboozle buyers with ridiculous postage costs
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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…