Author Topic: Advice requested on OM long lens for E-P1 (Read 3392 times)

traveler_101 · « **on:** January 05, 2011, 01:02:36 PM »

Just before Christmas I got a OM to M43 adapter and have been shooting with a 50mm/f1.8 lens inside and outside. I'm really enjoying the lens on my E-P1. I've been thinking now of going longer with either a 100mm or 135mm lens. It's mainly for cityscape shots when I need a longer lens to focus on a building or a group of buildings in the distance, that and perhaps a similar function for landscape. Here are the lenses I am looking at:

OM 100/2.8
Weight: 235g (8.3 oz.); older version: 230g (8.1 oz.)
Length: 48mm (1.9")
Lens hood: 49mm screw-in type
Filter attachment size/Filters: 49mm screw-in
Maximum Diameter: 60mm (2.4")

OM 135/3.5
Weight: 290g (10.2oz)
Length without lens hood extension: 73mm (2.9")
Hood: Built-in retractable design
Filter attachment size/Filters: 49mm screw-in
Maximum Diameter: 60mm (2.4")

OM 135/2.8
Weight: 360g (12.7 oz)
Maximum Length: 80mm
Filter size: 55mm
Lens Hood: Built-in
Maximum diameter: 61mm

I also consulted the John Foster page on various OM lenses on the E-P1. http://www.biofos.com/cornucop/omz_ep1.html

Holding the E-P1 still enough to get a good shot is difficult so I need some advice here. I was thinking the 100 because it is a lighter and faster lens, though I am interested in hearing what other people have to say. Foster says there are some ghosting issues at 2.8. Anyone have experience with the 100/2.8? The 135/2.8 seems a bit heavy and bulky, otherwise I like the built in hood and it seems to have better IQ than the 100. The 135/3.5 has good IQ but is perhaps too slow to keep shutter speed up enough to compensate for camera shake?

Thanks in advance for your help.

mikmas101 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 05, 2011, 01:37:38 PM »

I have the OM 135/3.5 that I picked up cheap in pretty much new condition. Its a really handy size and quite light but unfortunately I was a bit disappointed with its performance over distances longer than about 20 yards - too soft. Great for picking out detail on buildings close by but doubt it would do what you want it to do. I didn't keep any sample shots and actually have never used it since (must sell it at some point)

I do quite a bit of architectural stuff and generally use my CV 90mm for the kind of shots you're talking about. Doesn't have as far a reach but images don't suffer as much if enlarged. It's also very small and light and easier to keep still off the tripod.

Someone on the forum recently mentioned buying the OM 135/2.8 so maybe he'll chip in (might have been sirlylos?)

mikmas101 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 05, 2011, 05:13:38 PM »

This is an example from the 135/f3.5 that I do still have on my Flickr. It shows that the lens is very good at short distances (for portraits and such) - this was about at about eight feet from across the room:

G1 OM 135mm test table by mikmas101, on Flickr

traveler_101 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 06, 2011, 11:18:18 AM »

Thanks mikmas for your clarification. No it doesn't seem the OM 135 is the right lens, though I liked the way you used it for architectural details and considering the price I might still buy it.

I really need something with reach though for a project I am doing on Oslo. I could buy the Voigtlander you have here in Norway but just looked it up and the 90/3.5 retails at 4495 NOK or $750

at the only decent camera store in town and they don't seem to have a M mount. Not sure I want to spend that kind of money right now.

Is there anything else out there?

sirlylos · « **Reply #4 on:** January 06, 2011, 11:58:28 AM »

hey traveler_101, I've actually just sold a SIGMA 80-200MM LENS F3.5 OLYMPUS OM FIT HIGH SPEED ZOOM. I know it wasn't on your list but it's still an OM zoom lens.

To be honest I don't rate these OM long lens that highly as, like Mikmas says, it's just too soft at long range. It's my 30th in a few weeks and I've got a 14-150mm Olympus micro 4/3rds lens on it's way

russell · « **Reply #5 on:** January 07, 2011, 12:19:27 AM »

Try this very helpful site:

http://www.biofos.com/cornucop/omz_ep1.html#SECTION3

sirlylos · « **Reply #6 on:** January 07, 2011, 04:32:22 AM »

Quote from: russell on January 07, 2011, 12:19:27 AM

Try this very helpful site:

http://www.biofos.com/cornucop/omz_ep1.html#SECTION3

Great resource Russell

rama101 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 07, 2011, 10:40:36 AM »

I've the OM 100/2.8 and the OM135/3.5 since 3 months on an E-PL1. The 135mm is an older version (Silvernose) and I'm not absolutely sure if it is already multicoated. I've expecting to get better results with the 135/3.5 corresponding to the above webside but I can't confirm it with the results I got so far.
The OM 100/2.8 looks a little bit sharper than the 135/3.5 when fully open for short and longer distances. Both lenses are sensible to purple fringing (see right parts of the pictures).
The diaphragme ring of the 100/2.8 doesn't moove as smooth as the one of the 135/3.5. The 135 makes a more robust impression. Nevertheless I prefer the 100/2.8 as it is much smaller and it fits well with the E-Pl1. Together with the m43 adapter it has the same length as the 135/3.5.
(This is my first post and I hope it works well, specially for the attached pictures, the weather conditions were not perfect for comparaison photo shots)
pictures: OM 135mm f3.5 1/500 and OM 100 f2.8 1/800 no crop no pp.

mikmas101 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 07, 2011, 11:13:52 AM »

Quote from: russell on January 07, 2011, 12:19:27 AM

Try this very helpful site:

http://www.biofos.com/cornucop/omz_ep1.html#SECTION3

I looked at that site when I was considering the OM lenses and was part of the reason I bought into them (that and the fact they are very cheap)

I have to agree with rama101 in the last post that the comments on that site are a tad generous - certainly where purple fringing is concerned. All 4 of the ones I have are prone to this at or near fully open and this is pretty significant on the wider lenses (my 28mm f2.8 is particularly prone right up to f5.6)

What the site does point to is the problem with what he calls 'ghosting' - the only cure I found for this was the use of a baffle in the adapter and this significantly improved contrast.

All that said, they are still very good lenses for the low prices they fetch and can deliver some very warm and sharp results

rama101 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 07, 2011, 12:03:03 PM »

Here are the photos

OM135/3.5

Details

OM100/2.8

Details

and two other photos with the OM100/2.8 at f4.0

Details

cosinaphile · « **Reply #10 on:** January 07, 2011, 01:34:02 PM »

the fastest lens i use with good reach is the 200 2.8 canon fd mount , i find it has very good sharpness even opened up ,it also focuses close considering its F L, it difficult to find, but worth it
to look
for shorter tele action i use a 90 2.8 contax G thats amazingly sharp and contrasty as well as being a beautiful, finely crafted lens when used on the ep1 or gf1, without extra baffels just whats part of the adapter , its a first gen. small wheel adapter f t r

traveler_101 · « **Reply #11 on:** January 08, 2011, 06:45:48 AM »

Thanks to everyone! I really appreciate your thoughts and analysis.

Paul, the 90/2.8 Contax G: wow, what a sleek and beautiful lens!!! --and obviously it is light enough to work well with the E-P1. The down side is price--looks to be around $300 plus adapter and maybe a hood. A little pricey, and I didn't really want to drop another bundle on kit right now, but I'll think about it.

Rama101, I like your shots with the OM 100/2.8 and didn't like the one with the 135/3.5 that much. Thanks for posting. Looking carefully the 135 shot was not as sharp and it seemed to have some ghosting. You can get one for a song, but what's the point. Maybe the newer all black ones are better than the silver nose, but I don't think I want to take a chance with that lens. Mikimas put it down also.

Mikimas, maybe I am not looking carefully but I didn't see any CA on Ram101's shots. Did you make your own baffle out of sheet metal?

Still not sure, but if i buy a OM lens the 135/3.5 is out. The 135/2.8 is a possibility, based on what I heard from someone on another camera forum--though it is a much heavier lens.

The 100/2.8 is also a possibility. One issue there is that unlike the 135s it has a separate hood lens that may b difficult to acquire. Did you shoot with a hood Rama101?

Thanks again to all for your help.

rama101 · « **Reply #12 on:** January 08, 2011, 09:05:43 AM »

I've no lens hood for the OM100/2.8, the integrated one on the 135mm is really an advantage.
It's not so easy to focus manually it needs some training. It happens sometimes that I turn slightly the distance ring when switching back from the 7x or 10 x magnification to the normal screen. The EVF may help, let's wait that the prize will drop.
The Om 100 and 135 (and 50/1.

maybe not perfect lenses but I started again to enjoy manual lenses. It's worth to start with them and maybe switch later to much more expensive ones.

traveler_101 · « **Reply #13 on:** January 08, 2011, 12:51:38 PM »

Thanks for the follow up, rama101.

Quote from: rama101 on January 08, 2011, 09:05:43 AM

I've no lens hood for the OM100/2.8, the integrated one on the 135mm is really an advantage.

Yes, I absolutely agree, it's an advantage of the 135mm. I found a hood for the 100mm but it costs $30 and then you have to carry it around.

Quote from: rama101 on January 08, 2011, 09:05:43 AM

It is not so easy to focus manually it needs some training. It happens sometimes that I turn slightly the distance ring when switching back from the 7x or 10 x magnification to the normal screen. The EVF may help, let's wait that the prize will drop.

Yes, I can imagine that it would be difficult, especially at larger apertures. But the 100mm is no more difficult than the 135mm is it?

Quote from: rama101 on January 08, 2011, 09:05:43 AM

The Om 100 and 135 (and 50/1. maybe not perfect lenses but I started again to enjoy manual lenses. It's worth to start with them and maybe switch later to much more expensive ones.

Good advice.

mikmas101 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 08, 2011, 05:45:13 PM »

Quote from: traveler_101 on January 08, 2011, 06:45:48 AM

Mikimas, maybe I am not looking carefully but I didn't see any CA on Ram101's shots. Did you make your own baffle out of sheet metal?

I can see where the fringing would be - in the branches lower right. Reducing size for uploading and then jpeg compression tend to make it less obvious. I believe the forum gallery also compresses images significantly. I posted images from the 28mm that were blatantly obvious on my screen at home but looked quite reasonable here.

The baffle I made was from matt black card, slightly bigger than the inner diameter of the adapter on the rear element end and with a 13mm hole in the middle. I made a radial cut from the circumference to the centre so I could overlap it slightly and hold it in by pressure alone. Bit of a mess around but the result was a significant improvement for the cost of a sheet of card.

I like the look and portability of the 100mm and rama's pics certainly show it is the better of the two. There was apparently an OM 100mm f2 that was even better but I couldn't find one anywhere when I looked a while back

rama101 · « **Reply #15 on:** January 09, 2011, 08:50:33 AM »

Good advice for the baffle to fix on the rear opening of the adapter.
How did you define the opening of 13 mm? My standard zoom 14/42 has a rear opening of about 20mm, also the sensor size is more than 13 mm. Isn't there any risk of vignetting using a too small whole? I will try it but only in about 1week.

traveler_101 · « **Reply #16 on:** January 16, 2011, 03:08:38 AM »

Quote from: mikmas101 on January 08, 2011, 05:45:13 PM

The baffle I made was from matt black card, slightly bigger than the inner diameter of the adapter on the rear element end and with a 13mm hole in the middle. I made a radial cut from the circumference to the centre so I could overlap it slightly and hold it in by pressure alone. Bit of a mess around but the result was a significant improvement for the cost of a sheet of card.

I like the look and portability of the 100mm and rama's pics certainly show it is the better of the two.

Thanks mikmas and rama101. I just bought the 100mm/2.8--though I found that it cost a lot more than I really wanted to pay. I hope it is worth it. Now I have to wait quite a while to get it across the pond. When I get I will post photos.

traveler_101 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 20, 2011, 10:22:59 AM »

After getting advice from you guys I opted for the OM 100mm f/2.8 lens instead of either of the 135mm options. Got the lens some time ago, but just had a chance to take some sample shots. What do you think?

http://e-p1.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=2722

http://e-p1.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=2721

http://e-p1.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=2720

http://e-p1.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=2719

http://e-p1.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=2718

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #18 on:** March 20, 2011, 10:40:05 AM »

That's a nice set of photos, with the OM 100/2.8.
Seems like a nice lens. Sharp and compact compared to a FF 200/2.8

A Brit in Euroland · « **Reply #19 on:** December 16, 2011, 03:21:56 PM »

Regarding using the 135mm 3.5 Zuiko lens, which I have, it occured to me that using this with the EP1 it is really a telephone lens, but with my old OM1 is was a really a portrait lens, given the size ration between micro 4/3 and 35mm film. It was not really designed to be quite as sharp as one might like for a 270mm effective lens, and just isn't....

My 50mm 1.4 Zuiko seems to me sharper, so long as it is a little stopped down (max f2)... Am I right ?

Author Topic: Advice requested on OM long lens for E-P1 (Read 3392 times)

Related Topics

Recent Topics

Recent Gallery