Has anyone had any experience with the Zuiko 35-80/2.8? I'm considering buying one for use with my OM cameras but given that the price is in used Canon 24-70L money I'm wondering whether I should spend the money there instead. I mean, I know it is apples and oranges but what I want to ask is....is the Zuiko better than a 24-70L, is it a lot better or is it the same? Or worse? Or should I just see if I can find a Zuiko 90/2 and a 28/2 or something like that instead? These two would be a lot less money!
I tested one against a 35-70 C/Y on ids2 or 3 and kept the c/y even though I wanted the longer reach. The 90/2 is an excellent lens if you go the prime route.
Thanks for the info. From what I have read myself it is indeed one of the best Zuikos but I'm not too sure about the price, there is one available in the UK for £950, which is quite silly money. Hopefully someone will buy it and will solve the problem for me soon!
It's great piece of glass. No doubt. It is one of the last OM zoom lenses designed and IIRC it was designed with Sinar. In it's time it was one of the very few zooms that delivered prime like quality. I do agree though that the price asked has a collector bonus. If you have no interest in the uniqueness of this lens for collection purposes I'd say you have better alternatives. If you are after the best image quality and don't want to spend the money you're better off buying that Zuiko 90 and 28/ Both wonderful lenses and less expensive.
The Contax N is nice because it's auto-focus. Optically, I've never been that impressed with my copy or other sample pics I've seen on FM. Many will say it's a great lens, but it's just never wowed me like the manual focus Contax lenses have.
The Olympus 35-80/2.8 is attractive because of the constant 2.8 aperture, which allows for a bit more creativity with DOF, and most importantly, it produces very nice results compared to almost all other Olympus lenses. Unlike the trademark understated colours of other OM lenses, the colours of the 35-80/2.8 are more saturated. And it's plenty sharp. You won't want for sharpness with this lens. Ergonomics are fine if a bit odd due to the ball-bearing focus ring. The zoom ring is too narrow, in my opinion; zooming isn't nearly as buttery smooth as, say, Leica. Not even close.
I also have the Olympus 90/2, and like Paul, I would take it over the 35-80/2.8 if I could have just one. But the 90/2 does suffer mildly to moderately from CA and fringing (? - sorry don't know the correct terminology here) if you're not careful with it. But it's sharper, and the colours are "better" in my books.
Well I think I'll pass then and wait for something like a 90/2. By the way, it is £950 at ffordes if anyone is looking for one and apparently it is "new" (old stock, never sold). Shame I missed out on a 90/2 they had for £350...
Any interest in a head to head comparison of the zuikos 35-70/3.6 and 35-80/2.8? I currently have both, primarily for the purpose of testing them on a 5D2, mostly because I kept reading mixed information and couldn't find true comparative testing (and reading here and there that the 35-80/2.8 is close to the 90/2 in terms of performance). I could also throw in the Canon 24-105L as a more modern reference
panos.v wrote:
Shame I missed out on a 90/2 they had for £350...
I shouldn't be too worried at missing it, it must have been in a crummy state for Ffordes to offer it at £350!. They usually reach double that.
Don't forget the 100/2. (About £500+) One of the best for "gentle" bokeh and better corrected for infinity than the 90/2, though less good for close work.
Another "interesting" zoom in the mentioned range is the Angenieux 35-70/2.5-3.3 if you could find a good copy.
