Don asked, perhaps with tongue in cheek,
>What new technology in glass or lens
>design has enabled this?
[Lama clears his throat, takes a sip of water and begins.]
Uhm, this may be a bit awkward so you may want to send the children out of the
room while I explain this.
Some of the early lenses, though okay in 1972, were not leaders in the relm of
sharpness. For example, why did it it take more than
10 years to produce a superbly sharp STANDARD LENS??
Late designs like the 90/2 and the 35mm-70mm f/3.6 zoom were obviously
superior. What I'm saying is the 3.6 zoom is sharper than
almost all of the varieties of non-macro 50mm lenses.
30 years ago, they weren't able to mold plastic with the incredible
repeatablity they can now. I've read that it means that means
that centering elements is now automatic and precise and in the old days it
wasn't. On top of that, Oly didn't use ED glass much
and I don't think they ever used a single aspheric element. If I recall my
history, in 1972, they didn't even have machine tools to
grind an aspherical element. For the price of a color tv, you get a vastly
better lens today than 30 years ago.
Then there are the automation advances, the most impressive to me being
auto-balancing, variable fill-flash on a dial!
Don asked,
>Why have no other manufacturers come up with it?>
Well, they have. See the reputation of the Tamron 80-200 SP f/2.8 and those
35-105 and 28-105 jobs. As I read it, there's also an
element of framing the latest and greatest Oly as well, the latest and
greatest. What would you say if someone refused to by an OM
unless it took his Pen lenses? It's kinda beside the point to the marketing
guys so they answer you with the selling points again,
and again, and again, until you either buy or you step away from the counter.
That's their place on the food chain. :)
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 >
|