> Yeah, he’s been yapping about that lens for years on FM. (user: cogitech). I
> am sure there was more than one. Still, relatively rare but ultimately
> nowhere near worth $2k. Even if it was common, I don’t think it would be that
> popular. Slow, limited range, there’s already better lenses on both ends of
> it in prime form (24/2.8, 40/2.0), so why bother? Not to mention his had
> fungus anyway.
Fungus is the game-changer. Thanks for bringing be back down to earth. ;)
In all honesty, I love my 24/2.8 for landscape photography, and the
35/2.8 was my "normal-wide" until the 28/2 entered the fold and that
has taken over as my most-used "event" lens and gives me the ability
to foot-zoom. The only reason for me to get this zoom lens would just
be as a novelty item. I generally don't do novelty items.
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|