Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Re: My first piece of used equipment, bought sight unseen

Subject: Re: [OM] Re: My first piece of used equipment, bought sight unseen
From: tom@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Marco Tomat)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 09:08:27 +0100
At 9:53 29-12-1997, Garth Wood wrote:
>Now to brass tacks.  The lens was described as "mint", and from the
>feedback this gent received from previous auctions, I assumed that the
>glass would be flawless.  (The word "immaculate" was used with reference to
>the lens elements.)
>
>**HEAVY SIGH**  I must have a different definition of "immaculate" than
>most people.

I had one bad experience of a 'mint' description by a Canadian, too.
Aneddoctical for now.
>
>After cleaning everything and doing some preliminary tests, it doesn't seem
>that these slight imperfections affect the overall imaging quality of the
>lens (they're probably not resolving).

I would bet it is very diffcult to realize of a high-contrast definition
difference due to the bugs you found, compared to a truly mint lens.

  And as well -- did the
>200mm F 4.0 have the reputation of displaying a noticeable amount of
>pincushion?  (This one does.)

Some OM screens look as the lens were pincushioned. You have to print some
photos to measure distortion accurately.

Marco



##################################################################
# This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List
# To receive the Olympus Digest send mail to: listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
#   with subscribe olympus-digest in the message body.
#
# To unsubscribe from the current list send a message to
# listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with unsubscribe olympus in the message body.
#
# For questions email: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
##################################################################


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz