At 10:15 AM 1/27/2003 +0000, julian_davies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I'm sure I'd use mine if I could get a proper case to keep it in while on
the camera. The problem is not the lens, which has some really nice
characteristics, but how to use it without taking a write - down in value.
Why produce a lens and shout about how small it is and then not follow through?
First of all, Wayne has a point, the lens was only about $60-$80 when first
released. It only got expensive because of rarity (just like the 3 and 3T
:-) ) I paid $357 or $457 for mine, I forgot which :-) Second, I buy lenses
to use, so I'm not too concern with them being rough up, if it cannot be
helped. My OM-4T, which I bought new in 1986, is probably what one would
call ugly condition. The OM-4 I bought last year is practically new
compared to it.
re: 200/4
Yea, I sold my 200/4 exactly for the reason that Bernard mentioned, it's
too close to 180/2.8 is size and shape (not weight I guess) to be
worthwhile to keep.
// richard <http://www.imagecraft.com>
<http://www.dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo>
On-line orders, support, and listservers available on web site.
[ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous
replies in your msgs. ]
< 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 >
|