> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>>
> On 7/8/2019 8:16 AM, Bill Pearce wrote:
>> Ah, the good old days, OM with 49-55. Nikon with 52 and something bigger,etc.
>
> Not quite as perfect as you suggest, as the "something bigger" varied quite a
> lot. With OMZ lenses, one can hardly call
> the 18/3.5 a 49 mm filter lens,
No, it’s a 72mm filter lens, which fits perfectly into the 49-55-72 scheme.
> but it does fit into the 62, 72 and 100 mm filter sizes of others OMZ that
> are larger
> than 55 mm.
I know at least the 600/6.5 used the super odd-ball 100mm size, but which OM
Zuiko used 62mm?
And don’t forget the 250/2 and 350/2.8, which used super-rare 128mm threads. I
managed to acquire a Pentax 128 cover glass, but it’s the ONLY 128mm filter
I’ve ever come across.
I think it’s safe to say that, in terms of gross sales, the OM System used 49,
55, and 72 for 99.9% of lenses sold. I give them a pass on specialty lenses.
(What filter does the 20mm and 38mm macros take? :-)
Jan
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|