I second Gary's point. I started with a 3.5-4.5 and traded up to a 3.6. The
3.6 is outstanding but a bit moosey. And the photos I took with the 3.5-4.5
were really sharp and constrasty. I kinda wish I had it back. It came with
a metal hood. For its size the 3.5-4.5 is really great. Beats the C*N*N my
wife has and the"modern" plastic Minolta P&S we share.
Andre
San Carlos, CA
In a message dated 4/28/1998 5:38:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>Marko.Vrabec@xxxxxxx writes:
>
>> In terms of price I am prepared to go as far as the 3.6 model. In terms
>> of optical performance it is my impression that 3.5-4.5 model has better
>> contrast and more consistent image quality.
>>
>> I was just hoping to get some of those wonderful subjective opinions...
>
>Hi Marko:
>
>I'm a believer in starting with the lightest and most economical Zuiko in a
>focal length class. If you find something missing in performance, then trade
>it and move up to the next most expensive model. But then I'm into the OM
>system for its weight/performance and (formerly) its cost/performance ratios.
>
>Gary Reese
>Las Vegas, NV
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|