Re: [OM] How much should a lens cost?

Subject: Re: [OM] How much should a lens cost?
From: Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 21:17:35 -0500
At 3:21 PM +0000 11/5/03, olympus-digest wrote:
>Date: Wed,  5 Nov 2003 06:38:27 -0500 (EST)
>From: "Boris Grigorov" <alienspecimen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [OM] How much should a lens cost?
>The Olympus business types are trying to market it as a revolutionary piece.  
>You are buying a piece of history...
>But they are also marketing it as a technical marvel.  Their claims are (last 
>I heard) that if the 300 mm's surface was as big as a football field, the 
>deviation of it would be less than a human hair.  Pretty serious claim, but am 
>not sure if really matters that much.
>I would by the E1, but am not sure if I could justify the 300mm.

Your instincts are correct.  Marketing bafflegab.  Less than a human hair in 
100 meters is basically the accuracy to which any optical surface of a lens 
must be ground if it's to work.  So, this must be true of all good lenses.

Joe Gwinn

PS.  The sausage "kebabcheta" sounds like what we call "kielbasa", originally 
from Poland, but now widely available in the US.  Probably they wouldn't 
recognize many of the US versions of "kielbasa" back in Poland, though.

< 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>