I owned a 43-86, but fortunately I got it used for a song. Our own AGSchnozz
would have love it, it was one of the older Nikkors that had bare aluminnum
lens barrels with black focusing rings. Bu he wouldn't have loved the results.
It was a bit sort, but much out of character for Nikkors, it sadly lacked
contrast.
The 28-48 was/is a fine lens, that suits my needs well. Better it could go to
60 or so, but I shoot a lot of stuff with wides, so I loved it.
I also owned one of the 35-70's, it was unusually large for a Zuiko but gave
really good results.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2019 2:12:57 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] 12-200
On 6/20/2019 11:51 PM, Bill Pearce wrote:
> I was a ravel zoom guy, with the 28-48 on the OM.
But did it unravel?
I tried my dad's 43-86 Nikkor. It wasn't very good.
When the OM 35-70 came out, and I had switched to OM, I was quite pleased with
it; way better than the original 43-86. I
never owned or used the 28-48.
Shortly after that, my travel kit was 35-70 and a Tokina 70-200 (210?). That
seemed like great coverage, at the time.
Things have changed since then. :-)
Travel With Lenses Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|