GARYINLA@xxxxxxx wrote:
> In a message dated 98-09-21 23:39:55 EDT, you write:
>
> <<
> Why not? I've had mine for almost 20 years. It felt Oly then, and does now.
> Never seen another brand of 65-200.
> >>
>
> The fstop ring looks different than my other OM lenses. Also the FStop ring
> is at the back of the lens, whereas on some telephotos it is up front (like
> 200mmf4 and 100mm f2.8.)
Ring looks same to me, white f-stops, green focal length, rest ribbed.. Also, I
have 2 other Zuiko zooms and the ring is by the mount, as it is on the 65-200.
> Also it is one touch, whereas other OM zooms are 2
> touch (at least the 75-150.)
My 28-48 is 2 touch, but the 100-200 is one touch.
> Also the pattern on the focusing ring rubber
> loooks different than my other OM lenses, and seems like a different material.
Looks same to me.
> Also the lens mount metal seems slightly different,
You can tell what the metal is?
> and the red dot is
> slightly different than my other OM lenses.
Same as the zooms, different from fixed lenses which have an extension of the
red
dot which marks the distance of focus.
> Also it does not have a chrome
> ring up front like some of my other OM lenses.
Chrome ring I believe is on old Zuikos only. Maybe that's the main difference.
65-200 came out later than the original OM system (1980?) so maybe it is a bit
different from most of your lenses if they're 'old'.
>
>
> You asked why? These are my reasons.
>
< 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 >
|