As I'm doing one of those stream of consciousness things to the list right
now, I'll seek any views there might be on my two non-Zuiko OM lenses...
First, a question...I've noticed that non-Zuiko lenses are much much cheaper
than the real thing. And yet seem to offer features that the Zuikos don't,
at anything near the same price anyway, like macro, for instance. So what
are we paying for - the name, or is there really that much of a quality gap
between Zuiko and the others?
I know that I've seen debates about the colour definition and resolution of
lenses on this list, but I guess I'm not there yet - for me the image is
all, and if it's strong enough the odd artefact or a lack of clarity isn't
going to be a major detraction (maybe there's another thread you guys have
done right there...)
So, my lenses:
A Super-Paragon PMC II Auto Zoom 28-70 f3.8, with 1:5 macro and a minimum
focus of 0.42m (see my point about how this compares to my Zuiko 35-70 f4?).
Cost me buttons about ten years ago and has taken many of my favourite
pics...
A Carl Zeiss Jena (and I saw the thread about how this isn't a 'real' Zeiss,
as I understood it) Jenazoom 70-210 f4.5, with 1:4 macro and a minimum focus
of 1.1m. And, again, it makes the specs of my Zuiko 75-150 f4 look pretty
shoddy, but cost much less. I'll admit it suffers from terrible zoom droop
(it REALLY needs to be carried level, or else it extends itself...).
So, any opinions on the above, plus what am I missing about Zuikos in
comparison to their rivals?
Thanks once again
Mike
< 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 >
|