Hi,
> "Note in passing that Jessops still list the legendary 35-80mm f2.8 Zuiko
> zoom -- it is priced at a very-reasonable 2200 UK pounds"
Hmmm, "most reasonable" indeed! :)
I'd say that's about 3-4 times the price that lens should actually cost.
:)))
> I know the list often debates the relative merits of the various standard
> zooms in terms of quality, weight etc. But is the mercurial 35-80mm f2.8
> really that good that it is worth 2000 quid more than the 35-70 f3.6??
Short answer: no.
Having owned the both of them, I can tell that the 35-80/2.8 definitely has
got the edge over the 35-70/3.6, but that edge is not worth 2000 quid,
unless you're really loaded and don't have other things to spend your money
on.
> purse strings :-)) apart from the slightly greater range & extra speed,
> does the 35-80 f2.8 offer significant advantages in quality over it's
> lesser rivals?
You named the main ones. Other advantages may be more pleasing bokeh, and
sharper images (though the latter might only show in lab conditions). The
35-80/2.8 is a great lens which I love to use (even if it's rather bulky and
heavy), but then, I also used to like using the 35-70/3.6 and the 35-70/4.
All of them feel 'right', so really one should look at value for money and
at such an exorbitant price even the legendary 35-80/2.8 had better be given
a miss! :)
> In penance I shall say 30 Hail Maitani's
Nah, no need to; your value-for-money question is more than fair. :) Rather,
the one asking THAT much for that lens should do the penance!
Cheers!
Olafo
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|