I'd do just as you suggest. Ask the publishers/authors where they got
their info.
My opinion? The authors are confused and the dealer you talked to was
mistaken and sold a 350/2.8, a 250/2, or a Tokina, Tamron, or Sigma (did
Sigma make one?).
I have a hard time believing that a lens with implications like a 300/2.8
has stayed hidden for all this time, especially from this vigilant group
Skip
At 3/7/00 09:36 AM +0100, you wrote:
FvL wrote:
:All OM-Zuikos have two scales (white for meters and orange for feet),
:so most probably it has not been an Zuiko OM lens. Only exceptions are
:the 50 and 90 mm macros with one of the distance scales replaced by a
:yellow reduction scale, depending on version (USA or global).
:That leaves two possibilities: a strange Zuiko for another camera
:(Pen? very unlikely!) or an aftermarket lens for OM.
:I bet on the latter horse.
He told me it was a Zuiko. But since the lens is sold and his story can't be
checked, let's go back to the origin of my email: what is the 300/2.8 lens
that's described in the recently published Kadlubek's Lens Catalogue? It
certainly was not marked 'Brand xxx made for Olympus'. Maybe we can write
the authors and check their sources...
Hnz
-----------------------------------------------
Skip Williams
Westfield, NJ
skipwilliams@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.skipwilliams.com
-----------------------------------------------
< 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 >
|