At 9:53 29-12-1997, Garth Wood wrote:
>Now to brass tacks. The lens was described as "mint", and from the
>feedback this gent received from previous auctions, I assumed that the
>glass would be flawless. (The word "immaculate" was used with reference to
>the lens elements.)
>
>**HEAVY SIGH** I must have a different definition of "immaculate" than
>most people.
I had one bad experience of a 'mint' description by a Canadian, too.
Aneddoctical for now.
>
>After cleaning everything and doing some preliminary tests, it doesn't seem
>that these slight imperfections affect the overall imaging quality of the
>lens (they're probably not resolving).
I would bet it is very diffcult to realize of a high-contrast definition
difference due to the bugs you found, compared to a truly mint lens.
And as well -- did the
>200mm F 4.0 have the reputation of displaying a noticeable amount of
>pincushion? (This one does.)
Some OM screens look as the lens were pincushioned. You have to print some
photos to measure distortion accurately.
Marco
##################################################################
# This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List
# To receive the Olympus Digest send mail to: listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
# with subscribe olympus-digest in the message body.
#
# To unsubscribe from the current list send a message to
# listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with unsubscribe olympus in the message body.
#
# For questions email: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
##################################################################
|