Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by bigboysdad, Oct 3, 2014.
Anyone used this with an adaptor? Prima facie, this seems to be a good idea for my E-P5.
It works well, and is cheap, but is a long lens so gives a very narrow field of view. This may, or may not be a problem depending on what you are shooting.
I often use a 135mm f/3.2 Konica AR on my E-P5 and it's wonderful. Minimum focus distance is a closer than typical 1m. Go for it!
I have one. It's OK, but frankly I think the 40-150 is better.
I have noted what you've all said. I only asked because it's so cheap at B&H at the moment and it's a prime (using an adapted zoom doesn't sound fun with the camera's IS). Thanks for the responses.
While I've never owned an OM 135, I've no complaints about the performance of the 135's I own, even though some of them were dirt cheap. Can't go wrong with a Zuiko, and they still look good in the 21st century from an industrial design perspective.
With all due respect to BH, maybe you can save some money at KEH.com. They are well regarded for used gear and many people think the BGN rating is quite conservative.
EDIT: I just noted you're in London where nothing photographic is cheap.
I have the OM Zuiko 135mm f2.8 and have used it with the EM-5 and EM-1 and find it an excellent little lens, beautifully made and sharp.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
I don't have the OM 135/3.5 but found a cheap OM mount Vivitar 135/2.8 and it takes fantastic pics.
I've had an OM 135/3.5 for years. I bought a BGN lens on KEH. I've always been really happy with KEH. My 135/3.5 had a couple nicks and dings on the body, but no more than one of my own lenses would have after 30 years.
It was OK on my 5D... it didn't handle sunlight well, reducing contrast considerably whenever the sun was anywhere near the frame. Its resolution was OK for its price, but couldn't compare with my Sigma 70-300 (about the same as the Panasonic 100-300 for M43). I didn't use it much.
On my M43 cameras it seems a bit better, but that might just be because it was easier to focus accurately with magnification. In any case, I still didn't use it much, because my other teles are better. To get resolution that matches my 100-300 (or even my 14-140) I have to stop it down to f/5.6, and if I do that, why bother using it at all when I could get better performance in a zoom?
I finally get along with this lens now with my A7. Sony's focus peaking is spectacular (I wish my EM1 was as usable), and the look of the lens is nicer on FF, to me. At f/3.5 it mushes out the corners and looks nice for short DOF portraits, and at f/5.6 or f/8 it gets decently sharp. It's still not very sharp, but you can make nice photos with it.
Oh, one more thing about this lens: you aren't going to take any kind of close-ups with it. Its MFD is very long.
From what I understand the 135/2.8 is better, but it's more expensive. The OM 135/3.5 is really cheap, and OM is a nice mount. I might also suggest a cheap OM 50/1.8 if you're hitting up KEH and don't already have a 45/1.8. The 28/3.5 is a really nice lens too, although it's not a great lens on M43 (any 14-42 is better).
Having tried both the 3.5 and 2.8, I found the 3.5 consistently better - sharper with more contrast. Also lighter.
There's always a lot of these for sale on Ebay, you should be able to snag one of the 3.5s in an auction for less than £20.
I agree that the 3.5 is a better buy, it is sharper and more compact.
However I still like the 2.8 for the extra stop and smoother bokeh and with a focal reducer the centre sharpens up a tad.