On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 00:17:04 -0600, Kenneth Sloan <sloan@xxxxxxxxxxx> jammed
all night, and by sunrise was overheard remarking:
> 2) Mirrors: Have we discussed the Zuiko 500 mm f/8 recently? (Haven't
> checked the archives yet). What's your take on this lens? Given the
> price, what are decent non-Zuiko alternatives for catadioptrics? I
> recently found a T-mount 500f8 Celestron in a pawn shop for $200 US.
> Celestron usually makes good stuff. Decent?
I have a 300mm f5.6 Celestron, which I like quite a bit. This one is
shorter than my Zuiko 135mm f3.5, good quality, and a very nice match to
the rest of my compact system. You're not going to get the contrast out
of one of these that you'll get out of a normal refractor, but on the
other hand, a normal refractor in this length or longer would probably
not be in my gear bag most of the time. The lens is sharp, perfectly
color balanced, and except for the inevitable donuts and small loss of
contrast (though I've seen that in normal glass too), you wouldn't know
its a cat from the results.
> Other alternatives? Do any of you own mirror lenses for your OMs?
I also have a Makinon 500mm f8; fairly generic mirror lens, but it was a
good deal. I don't use it as much as the Celestron, but it's smaller than
all but one of my zooms, and better at 500mm than, say, a zoom on a 3x
converter. I would definitely replace it with the Zuiko given a good
deal, but that Zuiko is fairly legendary amoung cat lenses.
--
Dave Haynie | V.P. Technology, Met@box Infonet, AG | http://www.metabox.de
Be Dev #2024 | NB851 Powered! | Amiga 2000, 3000, 4000, PIOS One
< 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 >
|