Tom S. writes:
<< - - Over 4:1 200/4 vs. 200/5. Given the 'small/light' OM mantra, I
thought more people would have the 200/5. I remember a thread where
many people chimed in with positive praise of the 200/5 (including me).
I guess all of us did <g>.
I'm of the opposite camp. The f/4 is much more worthy of praise on a
performance scale. The f/5 was only a few dollars cheaper than the f/4
through the life it was on the market. Folks didn't want to shell out
almost the same amount of money for a lens approx. 2/3rds stop slower.
Presently it shows up at 1/15th or less the volumn the f/4 does on the
used market (without running the numbers).
<< - - The 35-70/4 outnumbers the 35-70/3.5-4.5 12 to 8. Perhaps the
biggest surprise of the data. Only two 35-80's doesn't really surprise
me, but I suspect it comments more on 'not everyone submitted their
data' than anything else. Lots of people clearly like the 35-105
though. >>
Well, lots of people might have bought a 35-105mm, but they don't
necessary find them a favorite. It has some major limitations, as per
recent discussions.
The 35-70mm f/3.5~4.5 didn't come out until late in the prime manual
focus marketing era (the OM-PC era, where it was also sold as a combo).
The 35-70mm f/4 had been out for many years as the budget 35-70mm zoom
and was sold during the OM-10 heydays. It was popular, although no way
as popular as the 75-150mm, which tops them all.
<< - - One stinking 50-250 (yes, mine). Come on folks. Other people own
this lens. >>
Of course, Oben has one . . . This was an extremely late lens design,
with a very short marketing period.
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< 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 >
|