>I wrote:
>
>>As the promoter/defender of the Kyocera "conspiracy theory", I feel
>>compelled to provide some evidence. So, I grabbed my Yashica lens
>>catalog and scanned in the 35-105mm Yashica ML lens page.
>>
>>Since it's a 67KB file, I'll send the JPG file to Shawn Wright. He can
>>put it up on the OLY list web site, so everyone who cares can view
>>the Yashica ML zoom page and compare it with the Zuiko. Note that the
>>small differences in length and rear elements design are due to the
>>different flange to back distances in the Y/C and OM mounts.
>
>Shawn Wright responded in private e-mail:
>
>>Done - see: http://zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/Olympus/35-105_ML.JPG
>>(watch the case above)
>>
>>Can you send a note to the list about this -- I have to catch a ferry...
>
>Pls feel free to take a peak and draw your own conclusions.
>
>I assume that most people on this list have access to the Zuiko 35-105
>and/or its specs (e.g. OM System Lens Guide). If not so, pls advise.
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>/Gary Schloss.
>Studio City, CA
>schloss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It does look very similar. Why would the Oly have an extra lens element?
They both specify the weight as 470 grams and minor differences in the
dimensions. I suppose the added weight of the extra lens element and
mounting structure in the Oly could be offset by weight differences in the
rubber materials?
The only question I would have is whether most manufacturers would build a
35-105/F3.5-4.5 the same way. An Elmar cross section looks pretty much like
a Tessar, a 4 element, F2.8 lens if I am not mistaken. On the other hand,
Oly lenses have usually been aggressively better or more compact which
argues for these lenses to be at least fraternal twins.
Winsor
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|
