Anyone who pays $150 for a 135/3.5 if it isn't absolutely new in
unmarked original box, is delusional. On the other hand, if you paid
only $78 for an otherwise excellt condition 135/2.8, you got an very
good deal even with the breech lock fault. If the seller pays for that,
you've made out like a bandit. The 2.8 is generally considered to be a
better performing lens than the 3.5. Gary's lens test of the MC 135.2.8
on an OM-1 clearly suffers from vibration problems or is a really bad
example. The SC test on an OM-4T with mirror and diaphram prefire is
more representative of this lens.While the 2.8 it small and light, the
3.5 is tiny and featherweight for a 135mm and is preferred by some for
those qualities.
Moose
Don wrote:
The seller is gigisanibel. He has already answered my email to him.
He offered to give me a full refund for the lens, or give me a refund
based on the condition of the lens. I want to see how much it will
cost to repair it before I make a final decision.
I have a Kitstar 135 mm and after looking at the Zuiko, I can see why
everyone is much in love with the zuikos! I think that I am going to
have it repaired and use it for a long time.
The other thing that I do not understand about the 135 mm lenses is
that I have seen 135 f3.5's go for much more then the f2.8 versions.
I would think that the faster lens would be more highly desired then
the slower version of the same lens. I saw an auction for a 135 f3.5
go for over $150 recently while I won this one for just $78. Makes no
sense to me, but I am glad to get the faster version.
< 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 >
|