What zoom lens?

[Rhodes]

What decent, light (in weight) and good zoom lens (mid wide to mid tele, is that how they are described, the 28/35-0/80?) can I get to use with my OM-4?

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

See here for Olympus lenses: http://olympus.dementix.org/eSIF/om-sif/lensgroup.htm
3rd party lenses there are some good ones from Tamron, Tokina and Vivitar.

 

[elekm]

You know, if you want something light in weight, then you are talking about plastic lens barrels and possibly plastic lens elements (although maybe Canon was the only one doing that).

And you also have to know that a lighter-weight lens isn't going to be too fast (probably f/3.5 at the wide end and maybe f/4.5 or f/5.6 on the telephoto side). Faster lenses usually mean a larger legs elements and more weight.

Usually, these lenses will have some barrel distortion on the wide end. Using a zoom sometimes/usually means a compromise.

All of the major third-party lens makers were offering something in the 35-70 or 35-85 range. Tamron, Tokina, Vivitar, possibly Sigma, and also a bunch of off brands from Japan and Korea. I would check eBay.

 

[Russ - SVP]

Vivitar Series 1, 28-90 lens.

 

[Rhodes]

When I say light in weight does not necessary means that I want a zoom lens that weights only 50g! It was more to narrow the advices, since I do not want a heavy lens. I had a Tamron 38-105 with my R3 and that was extremely heavy! Thanks for the replies!

 

[PentaxBronica]

Look at the Zuiko 35-70mm, they've made three different versions IIRC. I bought the cheapest and smallest of them (the f3.5-4.5) a while ago and found it perfectly acceptable.

 

[mr rusty]

+1 - the 35-70 f3.5 - 4.5 is tiny - not much bigger than a 50mm prime - its only 51mm long and 190g acc ording to Mir. I have one, but prefer to use my 35-70 f4 which is bigger and heavier, but still prefer it. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/3570mm2.htm

 

[benjiboy]

Vivitar Series 1, 28-90 lens.

It's a good lens but it isn't light as the O.P.specified, it's built like a tank and is heavy.

 

[David Allen]

The best zoom lens on the market is your feet.

No zoom lens on a SLR can come close to a prime lens and no prime lens on a SLR can close to one on a rangefinder, fixed lens camera, or plate camera. It is simple optics.

If you feel that you need to use a zoom there are two pressing related questions:

Why do I need a zoom lens?

If the answer is that you need a zoom lens because what you like to photograph is often unapproachable on foot and you have little control over where you can stand to make your photographs (perhaps because of a physical barrier or terrain that prevents you or some gorilla like bodyguard/security guard, etc) then the need for a zoom becomes clear. In this instance, all considerations of barrel distortion, widest aperture, quality of the optics, etc become irrelevant because it is your only way of getting an image.

My question would be do you really need to make a sub-standard (in technical terms) image? - if yes then use a zoom and accept it has limitations. If not, go back to my first sentence.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Rhodes]

Yep, the 35-70 f3.5 - 4.5 is very light weight.
David, I am just lazy so my feet are not a good zoom lens!
I know what you mean, but it always more versatile that exchanging primes or simple I want to get some close up portrait of some one and then a landscape to show a little more. I do not see images from zoom lens as sub-standard, even if they are in some way.

 

[PentaxBronica]

Buy the best example of the 35-70mm f3.5-4.5 you can lay hands on and try it out.

If you don't like it then you shouldn't lose money selling it on, prices seem fairly stable.

Note that if you also get the rubber clamp-on lens hood then you need to slide it all the way onto the mounting flange on the lens (which is much deeper than it is on the 50mm prime that the hood also fits). If you don't then it'll vignette at the wide end.

 

[Russ - SVP]

It's a good lens but it isn't light as the
O.P.specified, it's built like a tank and is heavy.

Why are today's shooters so obsessed with lenses and cameras that weigh less than a White Palace burger? Are we just too lazy or weak to carry a few extra ounces, even if its with a lens of proven quality and construction? I can understand it if you are hiking the Pacific Crest Trail. But for a day or few of shooting...

I sometimes borrow a buddies high end DSLR, and it's lightweight worries me about its reliability. It just seems do delicate and lightweight in construction. That's just my opinion. We should shoot with whatever we are comfortable with.

 

[M Carter]

For a 35 zoom, my #1 recommendation is as fast a constant-aperture lens you can find. A 2.8 gives you great control of DOF. It's the #1 thing my soccer-mom friends seem to pick up on - "why do your people shots look so good and mine look so amateur?" It's really about soft backgrounds and good subject compression.

You also get a much brighter viewfinder with the extra stop or two, and the same exposure wide or zoomed.

Of course, you need one that's (at least) reasonably sharp wide open. It's been years since I owned OM gear (decades!) and I don't recall them having 2.8 zooms. There may be a lot of aftermarket stuff out there though?

 

[Rhodes]

Went for the lightweight 35-70 f/3.5-4.5, didn't spent a lot in buying it and that was also a factor for me, these days. Was undecided in going for a large aperture and spent more money and going for a heavy one or going for the 35-105 for having a longer focal but also heavier. I already have a 24-105 in my Dynax, so light weight prevailed. Thank you all for the discussion!
Regards
Rhodes!

 

[baachitraka]

Zuiko 35mm f/2.8 or f/2.0 and walk around.

 

[Rhodes]

Didn't you read above? My legs are lazy, due to been always in the rest position. That leaded to my prime zoom lens being unused and therefore not working. I have to send them to be CLA!