Denton wrote:
>
>It's funny that you should say this because I have been thinking along the
>same lines. It is probably wishful thinking to hope for a body, but... how
>about a new lens?
>
>Someone in there loves us enough to get a new product out now and then...
>witness the 35-80 and the 2-13 screens. They proably lost a bundle on the
>zoom but probably have made a bundle on the screens.
>
>What would the votes be for one new lens, if everybody had one choice?
>
>It should definitely be a prestige lens, but relatively affordable (no 400
>2.8); should fill a glaring hole in the line; and most importantly, sell
>enough units to make Oly some real money--so that they might do it again.
>
-snip
I would vote with my credit card for a 35/1.4. If Oly wanted to best the
others, perhaps it could be one of those in between apertures like 1.2. I
can't think of a more useful low light lens for handheld shots. Shooting at
F1.4 or 1.2 at a relatively stable one over the focal length speed of 1/30
of a second. This type of lens is almost the only reason I have ever had to
envy the Nikon system.
Winsor
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx
< 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 >
|