Maybe it matters to someone, I lowered the 35-80mm price by $101 this
morning.
___________________________________
John Hermanson | CPS, Inc.
21 South Ln., Huntington NY 11743
631-424-2121 | www.zuiko.com
Olympus OM Service since 1977
Gallery: www.zuiko.com/album/index.html
Nicholas Herndon wrote:
>> I am in somewhat of a quandary here, Nathan. If you have never owned an
>> Olympus lens, then the little voice on one shoulder is telling me to
>> recommend a real dog, since then you can progress up to the real gems. The
>> guy on the other shoulder is telling me that, on the contrary, you will then
>> only conclude that Olympus glass is little better than jamjars.
>
> The 50/1.8 is THE starting point for OMZ glass, for film or digital.
> Better than a jamjar, and just about as cheap :)
>
>> You have heard AG wax lyrical about the 35-80/2.8 - I can't speak for that
>> one, and you might be looking looking hard for a long time.
>
> John H has two for sale right now, but they aren't cheap. Only worth
> getting if you are a die hard OM user and collector.
>
>> You might persuade me to wax lyrical about some other lenses, and less than
>> lyrical about some highly prized (and priced) Olympus lenses - except that
>> in using them on a digital body, you are automatically handicapping the
>> lenses, because you are not getting to see (for instance) the edge-to-edge
>> performance of the wide angles, and focusing them will be somewhat harder
>> than on a film SLR body.
>
> Not entirely true, the OMZ 21/3.5 has remained a sought after lens by
> full frame Canon DSLR users due to its ability to outperform Canon
> lenses of the same focal length. Plus, it costs less than $500.
>
>> So in honesty, if you have come so far without trying them, and intend to
>> use them only on a digital body, I wouldn't bother.
>> Piers
>
> I tend to agree here, unless you're going to use the glass on an OM
> camera, I wouldn't fool with it.
>
> Bill Pearce also mentions the 21/2 and 28/2. The 28/2 may just be the
> best of the OMZs, and it makes a handy "normal" lens on micro 4/3rds
> cameras, but again should really be used on an OM body (when using on
> my E-410 I found it to be...ordinary. On my OM-2n it is
> extraordinary). The 21/2 is one of the few remaining OMZs that I have
> not owned or tried but would like to. Way too expensive for using on
> anything less than "full frame."
>
>> PS But that might change when you get your M9. The Kodachrome I just
>> mentioned in another message was exposed in M and LTM bodies, with OM 18 and
>> 28 glass :-)
>
> Piers, am I reading this correctly? You adapted OMZ glass to a Leica
> M rangefinder? How did you do this, and manage accurate rangefinder
> coupling? I'm really curious.
>
> -Nic
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|