>Dirk Wright wrote:
>
>>35/1.4 or 1.8
>
>isn't f/2 close enough to f/1.8? OK, 1.4 would be nice for the richies
/pro's
>who could afford them. but count me out.
>
No, 2.8 is too close to 2.0 (ie, 35/2.8 and 35/2.0) It would be better
to have the 35/2.8 and a 35/1.8 or 1.4 as choices in this focal length.
>>50/1.0
>
>f1.2 not fast enough? Buy some lighting gear, or faster film. And who
else
>does an f1.0?
>
Ever hear of the Leica Noctilux?? Both Nikon and Canon have/had these
also.
>Olympus are hardly claiming to be at the top of the pro user's
>list, so why should they carry on spending large sums of money on r&d
when
>there aren't the sales to justify it?
I believe this is called "corporate vision" or, in other words, "we've
got the guts to take on the big boys and win." To put it in movie and
sports terms: "build it and they will come."
Be seeing you.
Dirk Wright
< 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 >
|