I Need to Learn to Stay Off of KEH - if you like manual focus lenses don't read this thread, it will cause huge GAS

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,491
Location
Anchorage

macro

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
587
Location
New Zealand
Real Name
Danny
Every couple of months I get on KEH to see what is available and today I discovered 3 rare gems. @macro Danny, what do you know about the Olympus 250mm f2.0 OM mount or Olympus 180mm f2.0 OM mount and how do they compare to the Olympus 350mm f2.8 OM mount (I know you really like this lens)?

I am not going to lie. That 250mm f2.0 really has my attention, but wow...…………………...that price.
I actually don't know anything about them mate. Knowing Oly and their tele lenses from that time period, I would say they are as good as anything from Canon and Nikon Ron. Oly made fantastic tele lenses at that time as you know. Canon made a 300 F/1.8, but rare as hens teeth.

A real collectors price that 250 F/2. I don't like buying anything I don't plan on use and get messed up.

There are two users here I know of using the 350 F/2.8 and it sure is one lens I would love to have. However, I didn't know Oly even made a 250 F/2 !! man that is so tempting if you could afford it. I need to google that lens just out of interest Ron. As you already know, it will beat the heck out of anything from Tamron or Sigma for sure.

All the best Ron and yeah mate, tempting for you I'll bet :) I better get on to google and look at that 250 F/2. What a nice focal length for an m4/3 sensor.

Danny.
 

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,491
Location
Anchorage
I actually don't know anything about them mate. Knowing Oly and their tele lenses from that time period, I would say they are as good as anything from Canon and Nikon Ron. Oly made fantastic tele lenses at that time as you know. Canon made a 300 F/1.8, but rare as hens teeth.

A real collectors price that 250 F/2. I don't like buying anything I don't plan on use and get messed up.

There are two users here I know of using the 350 F/2.8 and it sure is one lens I would love to have. However, I didn't know Oly even made a 250 F/2 !! man that is so tempting if you could afford it. I need to google that lens just out of interest Ron. As you already know, it will beat the heck out of anything from Tamron or Sigma for sure.

All the best Ron and yeah mate, tempting for you I'll bet :) I better get on to google and look at that 250 F/2. What a nice focal length for an m4/3 sensor.

Danny.
Damn, was hoping you knew about the 250/2. I didn't know they made this lens either and now I am super curious about it, but not at that price. I have talked about getting a 400/2.8 so I could use a speed booster for a 280mm f2.0 lens. This is basically that without using a speed booster. I didn't know about the 180/2 either but that isn't much of an interest to me since I own the 150/2.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,308
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA

The Grumpy Snapper

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
435
The 250mm was supposed to be slightly better than the 350. I never used one and only know about two being used in the film era. Both were used by a TV production company for taking stills from the back of the theatre/studio. It's a lot more useful focal length on 4/3.
 

macro

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
587
Location
New Zealand
Real Name
Danny
I've seen the Canon 300 F/1.8L (yes F/1.8) go for quite a bit less than that Ron.

The main issue with lets say, the Canon FD 300 F/2.8, the Oly 300 F/2.8 and the Nikkor's for example, is the front forward heavy weight balance. They are just so uncomfortable to hand hold because they are very front heavy due to the length vs the diameter of that front element and looking at that Oly 250 F/2 it would be the same ...... if not worse. A monopod becomes a must real quick with those short wide diameter teles. Mind you I'm using monopod's more now days, (hey I'm getting old) ;)

Oly 250 F/2 = weight 3900g. Heck the 500 F/4.5 is only 2500 - 2600g. That Oly is built like a brick what's it.

At the cost of the Oly 250 F/2 .......... and I know it's totally different in focal lengths, I would wait and see what the Oly 150-400 F/4 has to offer when it finally comes out. Just talking about the costs there, not the F/2 vs F/4. I can see the Oly 150-400 F/4 being around that cost and I can see the versatility and quality being there for the same sort of money.

I know you've had your eye on speed boosters with teles and it would be interesting to see, but at over $6,000 US, I think maybe leave it to the collectors.

All the best way up north Ron, be nice to have though ;)

Danny.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
1,586
Location
Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, Canada
Real Name
Jan Steinman
Hard to find anything on this lens
If you like your wallet, you aren't going to like anything I have to say about this lens (OM 250/2).

Don't have a link handy, but NASA reputedly tested it, and said it was the best lens of any make or focal length they had ever tested. [EDIT: added link.]

Likewise, Gary Reese has tested all Olympus OM lenses (and a few others), and this one ranks #1.

But hey, it's only money! You need to be careful, though. The Phillip Reeve review you referenced was on a flawed copy. Many of these have been butchered with Canon or Nikon mounts. But the one on KEH looks pretty clean, their ratings are conservative, and they have an outstanding return policy.

While we're on KEH, the OM 180/2 they are selling was rated #2 In Gary Reese's tests.

I haven't actually seen either of these, but if someone here winds up with a copy of the 250, I'd love the opportunity to pit it against my 350/2.8 with the Metabones Speedbooster Ultra, which "becomes" a 250/2. I've been telling myself this combo is good enough reason to not be tempted by the 250. Much. Today. (NO! MUST NOT CHECK SAVINGS ACCOUNT BALANCE! MUST SIT ON HANDS! :))

KEH does inch prices down when something doesn't sell quickly. I've been watching both of these. The 180 was recently dropped $400. If either of them got below two grand or so (fat chance!), I was ready to pounce.

Note that in the Gary Reese tests, the OM 100/2 comes in third, and the 350/2.8 and the venerable 50/3.5 are tied for fourth place. But the difference between the 250 and 350 is a full point: the difference between "A" and "A-", in Gary's tests.

Bottom line, I'd absolutely love to have this lens. But I'd probably lose it in the subsequent divorce… :)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
1,586
Location
Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, Canada
Real Name
Jan Steinman
The main issue… is the front forward heavy weight balance. They are just so uncomfortable to hand hold because they are very front heavy due to the length vs the diameter of that front element and looking at that Oly 250 F/2 it would be the same ...... if not worse. A monopod becomes a must real quick with those short wide diameter teles.
You really don't hand-hold a 3.9 kg lens.

I never owned a monopod, until I got the 350/2.8, which has the same length and weight as the 250/2. But now, I find it invaluable and valuable. I went out and immediately found a nice carbon Manfrotto for a good price, and I rarely use this lens with a tripod or without the monopod.

The exception is astrophotography, for which a tripod or equatorial mount works best. But combined with Olympus's IBIS, a monopod does a great job down to 1/30th or even slower.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
1,586
Location
Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, Canada
Real Name
Jan Steinman
Someone is nibbling… my monitoring service just told me the 250/2 page had changed, with the text "This item has been successfully added to your shopping cart."

But then I went there, and it was not in my cart! Perhaps there's a bug in the website or my monitoring service. Sometimes people add stuff to their cart just to see what the taxes and such will add up to.

Anyway, whomever you are, good luck! (And remember my offer to compare it to the 350/2.8 + Speedbooster. :))
 

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
6,211
Location
Southwest Virginia
Real Name
Steve
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
1,586
Location
Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, Canada
Real Name
Jan Steinman
I've often thought the 180mm would make a nice BIF lens but not at that price.
Mind you, I claim no expertise in BIF at all — and I know MF is the way it used to all be done — but these days, do you really want an MF lens for BIF?

Seems like the ZD 150mm ƒ/2.0 might be a better choice for BIF.
 

The Grumpy Snapper

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
435
Mind you, I claim no expertise in BIF at all — and I know MF is the way it used to all be done — but these days, do you really want an MF lens for BIF?

Seems like the ZD 150mm ƒ/2.0 might be a better choice for BIF.
I'm currently digitizing my slide archives and came across some BIF shots from 1985 which means that I've been doing it for 35 years. I'd guess my first published BIF was maybe 2 years later.

Plus the 180mm will adapt to the Sony E mount.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom