To be honest, I find many Olympus lens prices (used) to be well
outside what I consider a good value. With the use of OM systems
limited to the devoted it seems odd that the price of the good optics
are still so high.
I own three OM bodies (2 OM1, 1 OM2) and around 9 lenses, not all
Zuiko. I've had these (or family members have and I've inherited) for
around 30 years, plus more recent optics addtions and replacements for
stolen bodies. I also have a very well travled XA, and a Leica IIIg.
More recently I added a T4 and an N70 plus lenses. This brings me to
my point.
The N70 is a very modern system, lacking in the esthetics of the OM
cameras but providing some often wanted features like autofocus and
fill-flash. I don't own a better lens then the 35/f2 Nikor. This
summer I traveled with the N70 and two OM's, and the highest
percentage of really good shots come from the N70, mostly with the
35.
What is distressing is that if I'm not mistaken, the current Nikor
fixed lenses are similar in price or cheaper than good used Oly
optics. I'd like to see a direct comparison, but I suspect that the
Nikor 35/2, 24/2.8, and 20/2.8 are as good or better than the
comparable Oly optics, and the new prices are similar to the used Oly
prices. My SB28 is expensive, but blows away the OM flashes feature
for feature.
I'm not trying to flame the OM system, I still prefer to use it when
the conditions favor it, but I'm having trouble justifying addtional
optics (used) for it when compared with adding to my Nikon set (new or
used). Even with the IIIg (screw mount) there are some interesting
Voigtlander lenses, especially wide angles, although the original
lenses are very expensive. I'm just interested in the economics that
keep the OM lenses so expensive (e.g. the 28/2 I want [the 28/2.8
seems inferior optically]).
-John
jldasch@xxxxxxxxxxxx
< 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 >
|