What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Lens

E

ed_b

Member
For those of you in the know - Anyone's thoughts on the 35-80mm/F2.8 tele (likes/dislikes), and the 28-48mm/F4.
I ask, because I am looking at a 35-80, and I see it's advantages, to leaving lens behind and carrying one, instead of 3 or 4.
As to the 28-48mm, I wonder about this one. To me this seems like such an odd sized lens, excluding it's wide-angle application.

Since I got back into 35mm photography, I've been adding to my stock. Now, I find myself dragging two bags, sometimes three, and wondering 'do I really need all this'. And the funny thing is, if I leave something home, then I find myself grumbling, because it's there and I'm here...And needing it. (Is this the photograper's curse???)

I'm curious, for you - The pro's, what do you carry bag and gear-wise, when your out shooting (that's lens - body(s) - flash - tripod)

I wonder, if I try to carry to much. But then, I never truly know what I am going to be shooting or how.

Thank's for your time,
Ed -
 
>

The 35-80 is famous for it's quality at all apertures - if you can afford it by all means get it! It is not as small as some 28-80 lenses, but it is fast and has great glass - really unbeatable outside of the Leica line if you ask me (and a Leica zoom of that speed will run thousands more!).

I have no experience with the 28-48 zoom - it always seemed too slow and too shot (while not being quite short enough, if you know what I mean) to be of much use. I prefer to pocket a 28mm and a 50mm, mount a 35mm and travel with faster primes. But, that said, I have never used the 28-48 so I might be missing something wonderful! In fact, I've never even seen one first hand in my 30+ years of shooting and collecting Zuikos - maybe that says something too.

My bag these days includes: 28mm f2, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.2, 100mm f2 and sometimes the 65-200 f4 if I need something longer than the 100mm. I usually carry an OM-2n and the EVOLT with OM adapter. I prefer faster lenses because my eyes are not as good as they used to be and it is easier to focus them :) I guess that is why most of my digital shots are too soft - that viewfinder gets dim fast!

Happy Shooting, - marc
 
Marc, how do you like your 65-200? I always wanted one years ago, but couldn't afford a new one back then. They probably are more affordable now.
 
Hi Ed,

I use both Canon T90 and Olympus OM4 Ti with prime and zooms for each.

So much depends on what you want and what you expect to photograph. I've just come back from a 2 week break touring the NW coast of Scotland.

My choice of camera and lenses for this trip was the Canon, not for any quality reasons, but because I expected to do a lot of touring and some hill / mountain walking. I've found it takes punishment (dropping or banging against rocks) better than the Olympus and is more economical on batteries.

My choice of lenses was again governed by what I was expecting to photograph : panoramic views, sunrise/sunset over water and mountains, autumnal colours, dramatic cloud and sunlighting, and some low-light shots inside churches castles and stately homes (where flash could not be used).

The lenses I took were 20-35mm f3.5 zoom; 35-105mm f3.5 zoom; 55mm f1.2; 135mm f2.8; and a Tamron 180mm f2.5 (which I use on both Canon and Olympus bodies). All are fast enough to be hand-held under most circumstances.

My choices for portraits, weddings, family functions or macro. and microscope work would be completely different.

Zooms don't produce quite as clear/crisp results as prime lenses, but enable rapid, dramatic cropping or immediate capture of images that would otherwise be almost impossible without the 'ideal' prime lens already in place on the camera.

I was able to 'see a shot', stop the car(often in places not really recommended!) and either open the window or be out and back and away again (having framed the shot) in a matter of seconds. I cannot do this as effectively with prime lenses as I never seem to have the right one on the camera!

With regard to the two lenses you mention :

I fully agree with Marc the 35-80mm is an excellent lens and I can truely recommend it.

The 28-48mm is a bit of an oddball, and I find myself agreeing with Marc again in that it just is'nt wide enough(for me anyway). I purchased a Sigma 21-35mm f3.5 instead.

Hope this helps.
 
The 28-48mm/F4 would be a good completion to the 50-250/F5; this, focal-range which was useful for sports (Nikon made a such 50-300/F4.<font size="-1">5).

Sport/Wildlife-Photographer then, may split all this very large 28-(48-50)-250 focal-range into two zooms only to carry; also, placing them onto two bodies and getting as a result, everything as ever ready at hand.

Due to its brief focal-range, the 28-48mm/F4 should get great quality; yet, I did never test it enough to say more.
At that age (30's ago), it was not easy to made a great-quality Wide-zoom Lens if going to widest focals; like Neil's Sigma 21-35mm does, now.
By the same reason, *great* Olympus never made any 28-210mm as well.
Anton
 
Hey Mark! I absolutely LOVE the 65-200 zoom. It is not too big, has a very usable range, and produces excellent results. The built-in hood is perfect, and at f4 and 200mm I get some great shots with a nice blur in the background. I also like the 1-touch zoom setup; it is quicker for me to manage and mine does nto suffer from any zoom creep. I picked mine up in near-mint condition for only about $200 several years ago (actually, this is my second such lens, the first being stolen many years ago). I was using a Tokina SP 80-200 f2.8 before that and it was a nice lens too, but the 65-200 is a much better size and I have learned to live with the one-stop difference in favor or a much better balance and lighter weight.

The 65-200 is fairly common in the used market, try one out! It is fantastic on the E-300 as well, a great sport / bird / wildlife lens in a small package.

Best Regarads,
- marc
 
I like the zuiko 65-200/4 too but it's hard to found this lens without the problem in last element in my local 2nd hand market....
 
seen this info in zuiko.com before but now the page is disappeared.

>>Note if the rear element of your 65-200mm lens looks cloudy, and all recent pictures look like they were shot through a "soft focus" attachment, I can"t help you. This defect is more and more common with this lens and new replacement glass elements are not available.) Olympus doesn"t service this item.
http://www.zuiko.com/LENS_PRICE.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top