----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Norton" <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> I can see that. But in a way both of them were logical. The OM-4 was
> replaced by the OM-4T/Ti, but the OM-3 had needed the same upgrading. The
> 35-80 is a bit of a wierd bird, though, as it is an upgrade/replacement to
> the 35-70 and 35-105
To me both Ti versions bring little changes, just FP flash and solving
battery drain problem. I once had a 35-80 but without 28mm it is not that
useful to me and it is just too heavy as a general purpose zoom. At the mean
time the 35-80 has different characters, its high sharpness and contrast set
it apart from other OM Zuikos.
>> To me, the best components representing OM system are OM-4, 21/2, 24/2,
>> 50/2 and 90/2 macro. They birth during the golden age of the OM system.
>> Multi-spot metering with highlight/shadow control was a rather inventive
>> idea. All the lenses mentioned above were the first one with largest
>> aperture at their relative focal lengths.
> What about the 50/1.4? ;)
> It is really interesting the different perspectives people have of the OM
> system. For instance, I am a huge fan of the F2.8 lenses as the bulk of
> are 49mm filter ring sized and very very compact and lightweight. The
> diminutive lenses and cameras are what really sets the system apart. But
> F2 lenses are like an entirely different system altogether. Same system,
The F2 lenses are larger but not really big, they once marked the difference
between Olympus and other manufacturers. It took time for the others to
catch up and the 90/2 is still the largest aperture marco in 90-100mm range.
BTW, it is also weird that you consider the huge 35-80 zoom and T45 as two
components to represent OM system ;-)
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/