Here are a few collected comments:
Steve Schaffner wrote:
>the 200/f4 didn't meet reserve either, but the seller has offered it
>to me for $90. Any off-the-cuff advice whether I should take him up
>on the offer? I'm not dying for a 200, but wouldn't mind having one.
Excellent lens, IMHO. Sharp, and works great with the Olympus 2X-A TC,
even handheld. $90 is a very good price for it, esp. if it's in near-
mint condition.
Gary Reese wrote:
>on eBay, the [like-new, in box] 50 mm f/1.4 at $103.51 was one of
>the worst OLY buys
Recall that the MC 50/1.4 is quite scarce, and it supposedly performs
far better than its SC predecessor. I suppose a non-boxed MC 50/1.4
might fetch about $90. New ones are no longer available, and so a
collector may be willing to pay a small premium for box and docs.
Jan Steinman wrote:
>What's so special about a Vivitar 17/3.5 that makes it sell for over
>$200, when other lens makers' 17/3.5s are selling for ~$180 new?
>Viv apparently no longer makes the 17/3.5 -- another bad sign. Was
>it a particularly fine glass? It's not even branded Series 1!
Actually, this Vivitar was made by Tokina, and should be very close,
if not identical to Tokina's earlier RMC 17/3.5 -- a respectable
lens by all accounts. Series 1 17/3.5 was the same lens. Regarding
prices, today I spotted on eBay a Tamron SP 17/3.5 -- another well
regarded superwide angle, which ended up fetching well over $200.
A propos superwide angles, Sigma just introduced a new rectilinear
14mm F2.8, which looks VERY interesting -- alas, in C*non and N*kon
AF mounts only! :-(
Cheers,
/Gary Schloss.
Studio City, CA
schloss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
< 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 >
|