I agree with Julian. I know of several people who have purchased the
following:
Contax body to use the 85/1.4 Planar or 100/2.8 Macro-Planar
Leica M body to use the 50/1 Noctilux or 75/1.4 Summilux
Leica R body to use the 80/1.4 Summilux-R, 100/2.8 Apo-Macro-Elmarit-R, or
the long Modular lens sytem
Canon body to use the Tilt/Shift lens or 300/2.8 & 400/4 Image Stabalized
lenses.
So it's done, and as he mentions, if the lens gets you a particular job or
image that you otherwise couldn't get, a body is cheap.
But I don't agree that Leica M users would be drooling over the 180/2. Why
would they want that lens which would need an antique Visoflex to be used?
And Leica R guys have the gargantuan 180/2 Apo-Summicron-R that equals or
exceeds the Zuiko's performance, I doubt they'd want the Zuiko, with it's
OM-to-R mounting problems.
Skip
Original Message:
-----------------
From: julian_davies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:55:03 +0000 (GMT)
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Re: [OM] 18mm Zuiko test and why you shoudn´t sell it
Why? Bodies are pretty cheap in comparison with exceptional lenses. If I
had the need of one, I'm not sure the need to buy a compatible body would
stop me. More likely to be an issue would be how I planned to use it, and
therefore the further implications of having a body and lens which was
incompatible with the rest of my system.
For example, if I were a C*N*N user who wanted to use a Zuiko 350, the
additional cost of a body to mount it on would be negligible in comparison,
and the additional weight of the body permanently attached to that
particular lens would also be negligible. Therefore, what problem? With the
18, the equation is a bit different, but even so.... Also, if the lens was
only for a specific use, the flexibility provided by an OM4 would be
wasted, so that wouldn't be the body of choice.
Having said that, I have not seen a lens from a different system which
would give *me* sufficient advantage over the equivalent Zuiko to make *me*
want to do it. All part of the equation, but there are no absolutes, and
each person makes this judgement individually. Don't forget that there are
some L*IC* users who spend more converting Zuiko 180/2s to M mount than an
OM body would cost them.
Julian
> from: Jim L'Hommedieu <lamadoo@xxxxxxxx>
> date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 05:25:56
> to: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> subject: Re: [OM] Re: [OM] 18mm Zuiko test and why you shoudn´t sell it
>
> Or maybe they were testing the Zuiko on a body with mirror lockup and
> aperture pre-fire and the other mounts didn't have that advange coming
from
> whatever bodies they were on. Gary Reese's test notes show me over and
over
> again that they're less to testing than meets the eye. And more.
>
> These tests, especially across families like this, mean little to me,
> personally. Is a Canon F-1 (FD mount) guy gonna pick up an OM 4 to take
> advantage of the sharper 18? Not likely. Would you pick up a body in a
> different mount all together to take advantage of one or two exceptional
> lenses? I wouldn't and please don't tell me that ALL of the exceptional
> lenses were made in OM mount!
>
> It's kinda titilating to see an Olympus lens "beat" a Leitz lens
but.......
> Lama
>
>
> < 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 >
>
< 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 >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
< 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 >
|