Sirius 28mm lens for Olympus OM
Janie Thomson
Sirius? I haven't had a chance to examine it or try it on-camera as yet,
but does £40 sound reasonable?
Thanks in advance for any help.
Janie Thomson
Mike Chirnside
I'd have thought that £40 was a might high for one of these (£25-£30,
maybe?) - but I could be wrong and can't trace any, at the moment, to
confirm.
Janie Thomson
"Mike Chirnside" <mike.ch...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:7sDe6.7604$LQ2.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Thanks Mike
Any comments on quality? Or should I hang on for a Zuiko at the right
price?
Janie Thomson
Mike Chirnside
I have to say that a Zuiko at the right price would be my preferred option.
I think I had one of these with my OM10 outfit back in the early eighties,
but my memory has been shadowed by the Nikon F301 I traded it for - and
subsequent Nikon kit. I cannot, I'm afraid, comment on the Sirius - and the
lack of response to your posting could, also, be taken as an indicator!
I have an OM10 and some bits lying here which I must sell; sadly, I don't
think I've got a W/A - but I will look out for one for you!
Good luck,
Mike
Janie Thomson
Thanks again, Mike
I have no shortage of Zuikos available....just a shortage of funds :-)
That's why I was tempted by the Sirius. Have to save my pennies I reckon
:-(
Janie
Tony Polson
> Any comments on quality? Or should I hang on for a Zuiko at the right
> price?
It's almost an insult to put such a cheap and nasty optic on a fine
camera like the Olympus OM. You should certainly wait for a good Zuiko,
and you are unlikely to have to pay much more. You may even pay less.
Olympus made three 28mm Zuikos. The f/3.5 was a fine performer, and is
available cheaply secondhand. The f/2 was the photojournalists' version
and still fetches a high price. It is also a fine performer. The one
in the middle, the f/2.8, was a good lens but truthfully not quite as
good as the other two.
I used all three in the 1970s/1980s and would happily buy the f/3.5
again. The f/2 is unrealistically expensive and the f/2.8 is just not
as good a buy as the f/3.5. I can't imagine anyone really needing that
half stop enough to buy the f/2.8.
I have seen the f/3.5 lenses selling for £30 - £45. The f/2.8 is about
50% more expensive and the f/2 fetches upwards of £150. The 24mm f/2.8
is also a very fine performer and is an excellent buy, although you
would expect to pay over £100 for one. These prices are for private
sales; add 50% for dealer prices.
Hope this helps.
--
Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
Janie Thomson
"Tony Polson" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ckgm7tsc8td444qdq...@4ax.com...
> "Janie Thomson" <tige...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> > Any comments on quality? Or should I hang on for a Zuiko at the right
> > price?
>
> It's almost an insult to put such a cheap and nasty optic on a fine
> camera like the Olympus OM. You should certainly wait for a good Zuiko,
> and you are unlikely to have to pay much more. You may even pay less.
>
> Olympus made three 28mm Zuikos. The f/3.5 was a fine performer, and is
> available cheaply secondhand. The f/2 was the photojournalists' version
> and still fetches a high price. It is also a fine performer. The one
> in the middle, the f/2.8, was a good lens but truthfully not quite as
> good as the other two.
Thanks for that breakdown Tony
I was looking at the f/3.5 a few months back, but couldn't afford it at the
time. I'll wait until I can afford one now I think.
Janie
Mike Chirnside
news:ckgm7tsc8td444qdq...@4ax.com...
Thank you for adding to this thread, Tony; I didn't realise your expertise
lay down the Olympus road as well as Nikon!
Do you have any views/info on the 28-48mm Zuiko Auto-Zoom, which Janie may
also wish to consider?
Tony Polson
> "Tony Polson" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:ckgm7tsc8td444qdq...@4ax.com...
>
> Thank you for adding to this thread, Tony; I didn't realise your expertise
> lay down the Olympus road as well as Nikon!
I was an early owner of the Olympus OM-1. Like a fool I rejected an M1
with 50mm f/1.8 "M-SYSTEM" lens in favour of the "latest" OM-1. The M1
is now sought after and fetches a lot of money. Still, I bought mine to
use and it earnt me a lot of money. When I finally sold it, it was well
worn.
In 1977 I bought two OM-2 bodies and a bagful of Zuiko glass for a trip
from the Arabian Gulf, where I worked, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan,
Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Turkey. I shot over 150 films and sold a
lot of slides to picture libraries and a news agency. The money I
received paid for the trip.
Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s I used Olympus OM equipment and
changed to a Nikon F in 1986. I soon traded the F for an FE2 and have
used Nikon ever since, except for a period when I used Leica M and
Olympus IS series cameras. Surprisingly the IS 2000 and 3000 produced
some of the sharpest and most saturated slides I've ever taken with any
brand of lens.
> Do you have any views/info on the 28-48mm Zuiko Auto-Zoom, which Janie may
> also wish to consider?
Sorry, I know nothing about this lens. Until the IS series I was very
anti-zoom; I had used a 75-150mm f/4 Zuiko and was never 100% happy with
the results, so I stuck to fixed focal length lenses.
Despite having recently bought an 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF Nikkor, I *still*
prefer to use fixed focal length lenses! My favourites are the 20mm
f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8 and 180mm f/2.8 AF
Nikkors. They are all superb lenses, and my outfit includes all of
these except the 24mm.
But I must be fair to the 75-150mm f/4 Zuiko; it made me money, because
the results were good enough for several picture editors. One of my
shots taken with this lens was on the cover of "Paris Match" in the late
1970s. The two most "profitable" lenses I owned were this and the 24mm
f/2.8 Zuiko, which is a fine lens and every bit the equal of the Nikkor.
Mike Chirnside
Tony Polson
> Thank you for all this, Tony; you never cease to amaze me!
<blush>
Don't expect any more surprises, this really is the extent of my
knowledge. But I am considering going into business with it ...
Ian Rawlings
Tony Polson <tony....@btinternet.com> writes:
> Despite having recently bought an 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF Nikkor, I
> *still* prefer to use fixed focal length lenses! My favourites are
> the 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8 and
> 180mm f/2.8 AF Nikkors. They are all superb lenses, and my outfit
> includes all of these except the 24mm.
Despite having a Canon L 100-400 IS lens I'm after a few fixed focus
lenses as I miss the ability to use the depth-of-field scale on the
lens to almost guarantee what will and will not be in focus. I used
to use this feature on my Olympus gear constantly and have found that
my new Canon gear is actually a little harder to use because I've got
nowt but zooms these days... The canon's viewfinder image (EOS3) is
very noticeably inferior to any of the OM-series cameras --- small and
dim. The brighness will be increased by a wide-aperture lens but
nothing will increase the size.
So, I'll get a few fixed focus lenses for when I am doing something
precise enough to warrant the DOF scale (still life usually or macro).
--
There are no facts, only opinions