Thanks Daniel and Moose,
I had noticed the great similarity in element formation, including the
placement of the ED and aspheric elements, in my book of Four-Thirds lenses.
Funny about the fatter outer dimensions though.
Roger Key,
Bagsvaerd, Danmark
>From: "Daniel Sepke" <daniel.sepke@xxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Digital Zuiko 18-180mm f3.5 - 6.3
>Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:27:23 -0800
>
>
>Moose,
>
>I have not read extensively on the subject but I have done an overlay of
>the
>two sectional diagrams for the two lenses and they are as best as I can
>tell
>the same. The difference may be in the manufacturing stages, particularly
>if
>they are handled by two different firms or even lines within a factory
>perhaps?
>
>Dan S.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
>Of Moose
>Subject: [OM] Re: Digital Zuiko 18-180mm f3.5 - 6.3
>
>Roger Key wrote:
> > Does anyone have any practical experience of this lens?
>Pop Photo likes it a lot
><http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/2695/lens-test-olympus-zuiko-digital-e
>d-18-180mm-f35-63-af.html>.
> > ....... I know that it is almost certainly a Sigma in disguise, but I
>have
>tried it briefly at a photo show, and was impressed by the quality
>feel......
> >
>I'm not so sure about the Sigma disguise. The Pop Photo review shows it to
>have different dimensions and different performance.
>
>Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|