>Ted Slotwinski/Gary Schloss wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>2) 80-200 /4.5 Macro. " MC AUTO ZOOM CPC PHASE 2 CCT.
>>What brand of lens is this? Any good?
>
>CPC was a medium priced, somewhat above average quality brand.
>Dunno who actually made the lenses. Don't expect any fireworks,
>'cause you won't get any :-).
>
The CPC brand drives the pawnshops nuts. They don't know how to ID them.
They are not very common around here.
>>3) The other lenses were a 135/2.8 Tamron and an 85-210/3.8 Soligor
>>Macro Zoom. Any opinions on these?
>
>Must be an older Tamron. I'm familiar with the 135/f2.5 Adaptall-2,
>which is a fine, fine lens. (These days, I salivate over a Tamron
>180/f2.5. It's pricey, but still much cheaper than either the Zuiko
>180/f2.8 dog, or the Zuiko 180/f2 gem. Any comments on the 180/f2.5?).
>
Tamron made a bunch of 135mm lenses, and at least two f/2.8 models. I had
one version of the 135mm f/2.8 once, and I believe it was a plain Adaptall.
Adaptalls will take Adaptall-2 adapters, but it will not meter on some
cameras. I believe Olympus works fine.
Incidentally, the manual adapter may have been one of the most valuable
items you received. For some unknown reason, I have seen them priced higher
than OM-10s. It alone brings more than most used computer monitors.
Doug
############################################################
| This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List
| To receive the Digest version mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| with "subscribe olympus-digest" in the message body.
| To unsubscribe from the current list mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| with "unsubscribe olympus" in the body.
| For questions mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html
############################################################
|