PDA

View Full Version : Legacy Lenses Zuiko OM 135mm f2.8



halfmac
12-12-2005, 07:48 PM
I really like this lens. Got mine on Ebay for $70. My old 300mm f2.8 on 35mm was 6 pounds and cost $1500 and this lens on 4/3rds is of simular focal lenght and weights onces.

It is a very small and light weight lens. Hand-holdable at low shutter speeds. Use it mostly for indoor close-ups were large apeture is required.

Pros: Good lens at a great price. Fits in my small tote camera bag.

Cons: Autofocus is a gonner. A small amount of chromatic abberation. (which is in a lot of non ED legacy lenses). An OM to 4/3 adapter must be used.

Den
05-31-2007, 02:41 PM
Fantastic little lens and I'd rather have one of these in my camera bag than, say, the new tiny Zuiko Digital 40-150mm - can't say I've noticed much chromatic aberration on mine but I have noticed the practically non-existent distortion... I particularly like the built-in lenshood!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/195/504958339_d90aa263e2.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/191/516043626_63d35606ba.jpg?v=0

mfahrur
06-19-2007, 03:07 AM
I like the fact that it is a very compact telephoto lens with f/2.8 aperture that uses 55mm filters.
It is smaller than the 14-54, and faster at the long end than the 40-150.

E-500 + OM 135/2.8 @ f/2.8 ISO200 HQ
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1028/563612613_a9e362ebba.jpg

Pros: Small, compact, silky bokeh (smoother than ZD50/2, IMO), mechanical focus, built-in lens hood

Cons: Not very sharp (portrait lens, maybe?)

hestamm
06-24-2007, 07:42 AM
I like the fact that it is a very compact telephoto lens with f/2.8 aperture that uses 55mm filters.
It is smaller than the 14-54, and faster at the long end than the 40-150.

Pros: Small, compact, silky bokeh (smoother than ZD50/2, IMO), mechanical focus, built-in lens hood

Cons: Not very sharp (portrait lens, maybe?)

I have to disagree about your assessment of sharpness. Wide open, f2.8, 'tis a bit soft--but good for portraits. In the f5.6 to f11 range, however, it is very sharp. It is certainly the equal of the DZ 40-150mm in that regards.

Cheers,
HS

sokol
08-17-2007, 10:44 AM
I have to disagree about your assessment of sharpness. Wide open, f2.8, 'tis a bit soft--but good for portraits. In the f5.6 to f11 range, however, it is very sharp. It is certainly the equal of the DZ 40-150mm in that regards.

as for sharpness: my 135/2.8 is "sharp enough" to make good pictures even wide open, but then the 50-200 is a lot sharper at approx. f/3.1 @135 mm than the 135/2.8 @2.8 - nevertheless, I like my 135/2.8 for it's smallness, built-in lens hood & low weight, so really useful in my opinion and worth the money you're paying for it, surely!

as for CAs, yes I did notice some (whereas with the 50-200 I had up to date no complaints in that department)


to illustrate my assessment concerning sharpness: once I'd taken photos of a ship with 135/2.8 & 50-200 (aperture wide open as light was rather dim) & as fate would have it, afterwards, the picture I loved most was taken with the 135/2.8 - with the 50-200 I always did shoot with to long or to short focal length, which I cannot explain to you

anyway, the 135/2.8 picture got sharpened very conscientously (you really have to be very careful not to do too little nor too much) and now is hanging on my wall, in 40x30 cm (~16x12 inches)

with the 50-200 it wouldn't have been necessary to sharpen much, but the sharpened 135/2.8 does very well on my wall, I can tell you - and this at f=2.8, as I've written above