Giles:
Your signature doesn't include your email address, so email me offline about
the 135 2.8. I'm interested.
Tom Scales
tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Giles" <cnocbui@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] Questions for the group
>
> I had better explain my reasons as otherwise they are likely
> to be misconstrued.
>
> I consider my 24/2 to be one of the finest lenses I have it is very sharp
> and contrasty, the latter being a characteristic I value at least as much
> as resolution. I use this lens far more than my 35/2. I was not
> considering selling it because of Gary's findings but because of lack of
> space in the beak of the Pelican. I do not do architectural photography
> and I too think the waveform distortion would be undetectable in most
> circumstances. I never noticed it in any of my images. A case of the
> emperor's new clothes perhaps?
>
> If distortion is that much of a worry then who wants a 35-80/f2.8 with
> 'pronounced barrel' at 35mm. It can't be a very good lens with such a
flaw
> so does anyone have one they would like to sell at a knockdown price, now
> that this significant flaw has been revealed? ;-)
>
> Which brings me to my reasons for considering selling my 35/2 and the
24/2.
> They have nothing to do with any lack of performance of either lens,
quite
> the contrary, in fact Popular Photograph (I think) said the 35/2 had the
> least flare of any lens they had tested to that date - which has made me
> think twice about parting with it. I mentioned I keep my gear in a
Pelican
> case, well apart from it's more obvious features it also serves to limit
> incipient tendencies to rampant zuikoholism. I have vowed that if it has
> glass and I can't fit it in the case, I wont acquire it or else something
> else will have to go.
>
> That, not performance is the basis for my reasoning. My case is full so
in
> order to fit a 35-80 in, something has to go. obviously the 35-80 does 35
> so the 35/2 is an obvious candidate to go. Now I have sometimes wanted
> something a bit wider than the 24 so that is why I have been thinking of
> replacing it with a a 21. The 28? Well that is a slightly better fit (4
> deg) in terms of angle of view between 35 and 21. What I really need is
an
> 18mm then the 24 would be a perfect fit - angle of view wise - between
the
> 35 of the zoom and the 18.
>
> The 35/2 would in itself not make enough room for a 35-80 so I am afraid
> the 135mm f2.8 will have to go also - anyone want a nice 135mm f2.8 MC
with
> all caps and case?
>
> Giles
>
> What a wonderfull bird is the pelican
> His beak can hold more than his belly can
> He can hold in his beak, enough for a week
> What a marvelous bird is the pelican.
>
> Dirk and Carla Wright wrote:
>
> > bring enough raw fish and I'm sure they'll go with you anywhere.....<g>
> > So, what's wrong with the 35/2?? I thought it was an excellent lens! I'd
> > love to have one someday.
> >
>
> < 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 >
>
< 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 >
|