Thanks for the quick reply Moose. Too late for the wallet....14 lenses, 5
bodies and counting! I will definately approach the 65-200 with caution. The
50mm f1.4 I have is a later lens....1,091,xxx S/N so I might take your
advice.... The black body is in very nice shape with the exception of:
minimal brassing on the front shoulders, missing self timer (which I had
parts for), but it looks like it needs a foam job. Not too bad for $32.00
for the camera and lens though, so this one is a keeper once I get it
serviced (here goes the wallet again!)
Cheers,
Neil
>From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [OM] Re: New list member...with a few questions..
>Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:16:34 -0800
>
>Neil Scott wrote:
>
> >Hello all,
> >
>Welcome to the list!
>
> >I'm glad to have found a place where I'm amongst others with
> >Zuikoholism...I'm looking forward to learning and contributing to and
>from
> >others with this "terrible" affliction.
> >
>Hold onto your wallet. ! :-)
>
> >So, a lens question: I'm considering parting with my Zuiko 75-150 f4, 135
> >f3.5 and 200 f4 in favor of a 65-200 f4. This kind of move will certainly
> >lighten the load in my camera bag, but will I lose sharpness or bokeh by
> >going to the 65-200?
> >
>You can get some idea about resolution on Gary's lens test site
><http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm>. I'm personally
>never owned one, partially for the below reason, but others have
>experience with it.
>
>HOWEVER, the 65-200 is infamous because many of them have developed a
>hazy inner rear element. Unfortunately, whatever causes it (and you can
>find much discussion in the list archives) if it is bad enough, it will
>have actually damaged the element and cannot be cleaned or repaired.
>There are also reports of its return after cleaning. There are lenses
>out there without this problem, but it is common enough that one should
>be VERY careful when buying one.
>
> >
> >I recently bought a Om-2n from e-**y basically as a parts camera for its
> >lens; the camera was in better shape than I imagined but the 50mm f1.4
>has
> >fungus. The lens is in KEH EX+ condition and looks clear, but when held
>up
> >to the light it has light spidery fungus filaments throughout. How much
>will
> >this fungus affect picture resolution? Need I worry about fungus in the
> >camera body itself and will it transfer to other lenses? I live in a dry,
> >mountainous climate...will this keep the fungus from spreading?
> >
>The first question is which versoin of the 50/1.4 is it. The standard
>lenses, 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 went through many changes over the time they
>were manufactured. If it is marked "G. ZUIKO" on the front ring, you
>now have a lovely paperweight, since you can get a very nice clean one
>for less than cleaning cost. If it says simply ZUIKO, with or without
>"MC" after it and the serial number is under 1,0085,000, it may be worth
>getting an estimate. With a higher serial number, it was one of the
>finest Zuikos, and it is worth getting a pro opinion of whether it is
>salvagable and whether it is worth it. Even then, a really nice, clean
>latest model one may be had for maybe UD$60-70.
>
>I hope the camera is a good one. :-(
>
>Moose
>
>
>
>==============================================
>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
_________________________________________________________________
Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has
to offer.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the
first two months FREE*.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|