Hi, C.H. and all,
> From: "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carlos J. Santisteban"
>
<snip>
> >> 24-48 F3.5-3.8,
> >
> > I got one of these from evilBay, but came in such a poor condition that
> > had
> > to be returned. The refund procedure was extremely uncomfortable, BTW.
> >
>
> I purchased mine from eb*y Henry at $53.75 with OL mount, a good deal. He
> mentioned there are lots of dust and hairs inside, it was true indeed, I
> spent 3 hours to disassembly each lens element inside and have them
> cleaned.
Unfortunately, mine had a lot of play in all of the mechanisms -- it
couldn't focus much farther than a few metres, thus nearly unuseable.
Probably the glass was OK, though,
> >> 35-80 F2.8-3.8
> >
> >
> > No experience on this one.
Silly me! I have checked my photo-gear data base and... I have one of
these! Since I don't find the range very appealing, probably didn't even
tested it, and should be now in a drawer at dad's home...
> It is certainly not true for the 35-80 SP, it is very sharp even wide open
> from 35-50mm. At 80mm it is a little soft at the edges, stopping down to
> F5.6 vitually eliminated the problem.
It seems to deserve a test, then.
>> and 70-210 F3.5-4.
> >
> > Got one of these. Haven't used it much, but seems much easier to use than
> > the slightly faster, one-touch constant f/3.5
According to <http://www.adaptall-2.com>, it seems that the big, one-touch
version is much sharper... however, the reason behind it is that the
two-touch is more optimized for close distances (thus much better for
macro). Also, the main aberration on the two-touch is spherical, easily
corrected with the unsharp mask in PS!
> Another alternative to the 3.5 is the 75-250/3.8-4.5
<snip>
> >Not an SP, but very good quality also.
Again, it seems there were two versions of it, almost identical outside: 04A
and 104A, the latter being a much better performer. I own both, don't recall
which one tested, but since I considered it comparable to the excellent 19AH
(70-210/3.5), it might be the 104A...
OMG, I think I should stop buying lenses and start taking more pictures! :-)
:-) :-)
> That one looks very interesting, the weight of 856g is lighter than it
> looked.
It feels much lighter than the 19AH, which weights almost the same: 860 g.
Cheers,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|