Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] RE: olympus-digest V2 #4043

Subject: Re: [OM] RE: olympus-digest V2 #4043
From: Thomas Heide Clausen <T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 02:24:28 +0200
On Thu, 15 May 2003 15:45:35 -0500
clintonr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Maybe because they are so "common".
> 
> Back when I used to work retail, I noticed that 135mm lenses were
> universally cheap for almost every brand, second only to 50mm 1.8
> lenses, and followed closely by 35mm lenses.  In the olden days,
> after the ubiquitous"body-and-standard-lens" package, the major
> players most often packaged the body/standard lens with either a
> 135mm and/or a 35mm lens.
> 
> This might be because they were optically simple to make, so the
> camera companies would make a lot of them cheaply.  And with
> greater production comes even greater economy of scale.  The
> problem was, since they were so cheap and common, nobody was
> interested in them!  They were so cheap they couldn't get any
> respect -- sort of like the 50mm 1.8's, if everyone has one, it
> _can't_ be any good, right?  A _real_ photographer would buy a
> 100mm or a 55mm 1.2!

*gg* - a vanity syndrome of some sort :) You're probably right,
though. I am probably odd in that I combine a 55/1.2 (vanity?) with
an 135 (cheap and no respect?) as my preferred kit...:)

> 
> Beyond that, the only concern technically is that later versions of
> the 135mm(both 2.8 and 3.5) have a plastic frame inside the mount
> that holds the parts in place.  That would be fine except that one
> of the parts is the spring for the latch.  This spring, which holds
> the lens lock in place, sometimes breaks loose.  When that happens,
> the lens will mount but not lock in place.  It's an easy fix, but a
> nusance.
> 

Clint, are you advocating another point where the silver-schnozz'ed
lenses are superior? Ken will be SOOO pleased :) In seriousness, any
way in which I easilly can identify if my 135mm's are of the "plastic
frame" version or not?

--thomas

> 
> 
> Douglas Tourtelot wrote:
> 
> > Can anyone tell me if the Zuiko 135/2.8 has a bad reputation?  I
> > was comparing prices and it is always radically less expensive
> > than the 100/2.8. Just more made, or not as good?  Or both?
> >
> > Also OT:  Does anyone know where I can buy a refurbished Epson
> > 740 printer. I know.  Pretty far OT, but it is, allegedly, a
> > photo printer<g>.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > < 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 >
> 


-- 

-------------------------------------------
  Thomas Heide Clausen
  Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
  M.Sc in Computer Engineering

  E-Mail: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
  WWW:    http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop
-------------------------------------------

< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz