At 01:26 PM 3/18/99 -0800, you wrote:
>For Cdn$99 + taxes I bought a used E.Zuiko 135mm / f3.5 lens from one of our
>mainline camera stores. From both ends of the lens the optics are without
>any visible blemish and there are no dings or scratches on the outer body.
>Did I over or under pay? Are there any opinions on the performance of this
>lens?
>
>I also saw a used Zuiko 75mm / 150mm [f3.5 or f4.5] zoom for about Cdn$150.
>It was in like condition to the 135mm / f3.5. The store manager opined that
>this lens would produce slightly less sharp images than the 135mm lens. Is
>Cdn150 a reasonable price for the zoom and are there any opinions as to the
>performance of this lens and in particular about the "lack" of performance
>as compared to the 135mm?
>
>Thanks in advance for all and opinions!
>
>John Hudson
>
John,
For all intents and purposes, I don't think you'll notice a lot of
difference between your 135/3.5 and 75-150/4 at 135, provided the zoom is a
good sample. There seems to be a lot of variance among samples of the
75-150, it being reportedly prone to possible element separation. John
Hermanson discussed this once upon a time, and it's probably recoverable
from the archives. The 135/f3.5 is a good lens, though somewhat more on
the average side among Zuikos IMHO. It is stalwart and I don't hesitate to
use it in the company of my 85/f2 and 200/f4. Mine is also an SC, as is the
example you mention in the subject line; an MC version might provide
additional emotional satisfaction at least <g>; the zoom is of course MC.
Based on what you say, I would sort of guess that the store manager is
pontificating conventional wisdom rather than sincere knowledge of these
lenses.
I would say that's a fair price for the zoom. It won't win you bragging
rights on the list, but it's not embarrassing either.
Good luck,
Joel
< 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 >
|