Earlier this summer, I took a fancy to my small Olympus film camera collection. Last year I carefully traded out an Olympus OM-2n for an Om-4Ti and then picked up a user-grade OM-3. The OM-1MD was also serviced when I found it had a frozen shutter.

When I bought the Olympus kit from an old motorcycle friend, it came with a small collection of lenses. They were the usual suspects and a mix of OEM and third-party glass. The Tokina zoom was surprising good, certainly better than I expected. But I do not generally use zoom lenses, particularly on vintage film cameras. The prime lenses are generally much better and certainly far more interesting from a image quality perspective.

Over the last few months I carefully curated a small collection of Zuiko prime lenses. I carefully picked those with the best reputation for image quality. I think my collection is complete and I have a few samples to sell.

One of the lenses with a better than average reputation is the Zuiko 90mm f/2 macro lens. It is fast, particularly for a close-focusing lens. It has a reputation for being sharp, even wide open, and sharp across the field (even wide open).

I also have a Tamron 90mm f/2.5 macro lens in my collection that uses the Tamron Adaptall-2 mounting system. The Olympus adapter(s) were purchased last year (or before). During my research I noted that there were two instances of the adapter with the later unit being adjusted to fit the OM-4 bodies. The earlier version would sometimes lock to the body because one particular screw was in slightly the wrong position for the mount. So, I made sure I have only the later copies in my collection. The early version of the adapter was set aside.

A number of the Tamron lenses are rated superior in image quality to the general population of third-party glass. Tamron’s designs were good, particularly their 90mm, 70-210mm zoom, and 17mm lenses. All of my samples are from the SP line with the BBAR coatings. They are also in good condition.

When my Zuiko 90mm arrived, I collected it, the Zuiko 85mm f/2, and the Tamron 90mm lenses and played a little at my desk. My Lucas plushie often serves as a test subject for my playing and he did well this time around. I also keep the living room lights on because they can provide an interesting bokeh if that is part of the lens’ attraction.

The Zuiko is quite good. I do not see any bloom in the out of focus background light and the light from my desk lamp (that illuminates Lucas) does not cause any significant loss of contrast in the image. The lens is plenty sharp wide open.

For comparison, I shot the same image with the Tamron 90mm. Both were affixed to my Sony A7iii and shot in raw format. I made a few minor edits to the images to adjust contrast and saturation slightly¹. The Tamron performs well in comparison to the Zuiko. Both lenses are a good match for the OM bodies, with the Zuiko being just a little smaller.

This is not intended to be a scientific test of the optics of my two samples. There are plenty of in-depth studies of the lenses on the Interwebs. My comparison between two legacy lenses that both have solid reputations is intended to provide a quick answer to the question “Are they any good?”. From my limited experience, those reputations are deserved.

I might do a three-way comparison and include the Zuiko 85mm f/2 in the lineup. That lens is slightly smaller than the 90mm f/2 macro.

—–
¹The Sony cameras are solid, particularly at the Rev. III level. They have in-body image stabilization that can be adjusted for unchipped manual lenses using the menu system. However, I do not care for the image quality straight out of camera. While the adjustments I make are generally subtle, I find SOOC Sony colors not quite to my taste.