> I had the opportunity to handle a used 90/2.5, and a new 90/2.8 MF in the
same
> week, although at different stores. My impression was the old 2.5 was *far*
> more solid in look and feel. The 2.8 looked and felt quite "plasticky" by
> comparison, although it did seem to have more substance to it than a typical
AF
> lens of the same physical size. ie: by today's standards, the new lens is
> probably considered to be well built.
The guy who sold me my Tamron said "It's metal, tough and solid, not like this
new s**t". He's right. It may not look pretty, but is still optically great. I
wonder how much of a beating a plastic lens could take in comparison.
Foxy
##################################################################
# 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
##################################################################
|