Hi Andrew,
I was referring to either - I have used both rather
extensively, and though the 1Ds finder is of course bigger
than the 1D's, both are small and dim compared to the OM-1's.
Regarding the specks in the 90mm Macro, I am going to
take a photo and post a link to it here sometime to
get this list's opinion. I agree, I am going to complain to the
seller, he mentioned a 'few specks of dust' which is, of course, of
no concern (I am not one of those people who worry about dust in a
lens), but this is really rather a *lot* of worryingly uniform
(in terms of coverage across the lens element) specks, visible
only in sharp, direct sun, which appears to make
the lens rather flare-prone (looking through the finder,
anyway, have not looked at film results yet) , because sunlight
shining into the lens is obviously seriously reflecting off
of them. They appear to be in the first two or three elements,
so it should be easy enough to open the lens and see if they
can be cleaned out - I will try a local specialist working
on old lenses, or otherwise even myself, I have opened and cleaned
lenses before, especially if it's not too deep into the lens.
But I must say, this does sound more like the specks of black paint,
than dust.
One of the conditions of buying the lens (and getting it at a fairly
decent price) is a small mark or two inside the lens, almost like
two tiny chip marks, towards the side of the lens - I have no idea how
one manages to chip the *inside* of a lens element, especially seeing
as the lens looks cosmetically perfect on the outside, but we'll see.
Maybe it's related...
Again, though the seller mentioned these, he could have represented
them better, and have posted better shots to illustrate them. But that's
the risks one takes I guess... Buying a lens from 10,000km away :-)
On 26 Sep 2008, at 11:17 PM, Andrew Fildes wrote:
>
> It's probably the best SLR finder ever made. I find the new full
> frame bodies like the Nikon D3 & D700 are almost as good as an old
> film finder - were you referring to an 1D or 1Ds? But nothing
> compares to an OM-1 with no flash shoe - just drop the eye into it.
> Specks in lenses were often not dust but tiny particles of the black
> paint used to edge coat the lens elements - which seem to break away
> with time. A few don't seem to have any effect on images especially
> if you really have to hunt for them. Any lens of that age is going to
> have some - it is possible to get it cleaned of course but not
> usually necessary (unless it really, really bothers you).
> Of course, you could complain to the seller and request a discount -
> they really should have been mentioned in an ebay listing, for
> instance.
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On 26/09/2008, at 7:34 PM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
>
>> I guess this is said a lot, but allow me to express amazement at how
>> much bigger
>> and brighter the OM-1's viewfinder is compared to a Canon EOS 1-
>> series
>> DSLR (which has
>> a pretty darn good viewfinder already).
>> SNIP
>>
>> The lens appears to have a lot of small specks inside it which is
>> either dust, or something
>> else - visible only in bright, direct sunlight shining on the lens
>> from an angle. I hope it
>> won't affect performance, though I imagine it could lower the
>> contrast
>> of a shot
>> taken into the sun - will have to test. I *really* hope it's not some
>> problem with the coating
>> of the lens, this 90mm was bloody expensive!! It looks near mint in
>> all other respects though,
>> so I am suspecting strangely-regular dust for the moment.
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|