I think you're close to answering your own question.
The M2: 35/50/90 was probably a good kit. Longer focal lengths were wanted
but don't the RF cameras start to have problems at about 135mm? So
35/50/90/135 later became a popular option. It's a shame the 75 of the M6
didn't lead Olympus into having a 75 f1.8 instead of a 85 f2.
-jeff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Der Eiserne Reiter
>
> That's the thing, also on the L*ica viewfinder side this has
> been missing:
>
> M3: 50/90/135
> M2: 35/50/90
> M4, M5, M4-2: 35/50/90/135
> M6: 28/35/50/75/90/135
> CLE: 28/40/90
>
> People do use the 35mm frame for 40mm.
>
> If you look at the Zuiko line-up:
>
> 35mm: 18, 21, 24, 28, 35, 40, 50/55, 85/90, 100, 135, 180 ...
>
> (Half-frame: 20, 25, 38/40/42, 60, 70, 100, 150, ...)
>
> There is a clear gap between 55 and 85. Actually there should
> be two additional focal
> lengths: 60 and 75 ...
>
> Just wondering,
>
> Roland.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|