Lou writes:
<< Thanks for your reply; the lens I bought was new if that changes anything?
It may even be returnable the dealer told me that dealer price on that lens
is over $900. >>
You paid very close to current dealer price. Suggested List Price (a rather
meaningless price in retail) isn't even close to that, as per John H.'s
response, albeit of year old prices.
<< Does anyone know where I can get a 25mm extension tube or a 100 or 135 mm
lens for portraits? >>
Dirk wrote on that:
<< Your Olympus dealer can get those others for you new. >>
Nope, not a 135mm lens. They have been discontinued for quite some time.
Lou again writes:
<< Please what is the F2 lens and in what way is it superior to what I
purchased? >>
It isn't necessarily superior. It all depends on what applications you use a
lens for.
Acer writes:
<< Ouch... Being a macro [the 50mm f/2], wouldn't it be nice of it went
further down, say f:32 >>
Not necessarily. Performance at f/22 and smaller in a 50mm lens is a serious
trade off. I've never tested one from any manufacturer that didn't severly
degrade after f/16. And beginning at a 1:2 magnification ratio and greater,
you are up against diffraction limited results at f/22 (f/16 at 1:1). f/32
is too much to expect. I'll test a Canon FD 50mm f/3.5 I have to prove it.
It goes down to f/32.
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< 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 >
|