The rear baffle prevents the lens from resting on the element when you set
the lens down.
John Hermanson
___________________________________
Camtech, Olympus Service since 1977.
21 South Ln. Huntington NY 11743-4714
631-424-2121 http://www.zuiko.com
Free Olympus Manuals: 1-800-221-3000
___________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Scales <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 12:51 AM
Subject: [OM] Problems with my 50 f/3.5 Macro and my 35-70 f/3.6
> I have a couple questions I'll throw to the list, probably before I send
> both lenses off to John at Camtech.
>
> 50 f/3.5 - Can't believe I didn't notice this, but there is a piece
missing
> at the back of the lens. I've been told it's called a baffle, but I'm
> baffled <grin>. At the back of most of my Zuikos, there is a tab of sorts
> that is attached to the back, right up against the side of the glass. It's
> all black and curved and juts out and is essentially on what would be the
> bottom of the lens (or body). On the 50 macro it's missing and there is
> just a shiny silver spot on the back of the lens. So, the questions are:
>
> 1) What does it really do
> 2) What happens if you don't have it
> 3) Can it be inexpensively replaced
>
> I'm going to keep one 50 macro and if this piece isn't critical, I'm home
> free. I suspect it is, since they wouldn't have it if it isn't important.
>
> 35-70 f/3.6 - I sold this one and got it back. I think that's probably
> right. This one is harder to describe. This is a wierd little lens, I
> think because of its design, but the feel is unusual. The question is
> whether that's right or not, so here goes. The problem seems to be that
> there is a little 'play' in the focus ring. You can move it slightly,
> probably an 1/8th of an inch, before it 'catches' and the focusing occurs.
> It's more pronounced at the 35 position than the 70 position and at 35
it's
> not exactly what I'd call smooth. At some points the focus ring moves
more
> easily than at others. Not a big difference, but noticeable. I bought
this
> one from the Olympus guy, so I'm a little surprised that this is occuring.
> It focuses, so I'm not positive the feel is actually a problem, but it is
> wierd.
>
>
> So, I suspect the answer is that they both need fixed, which is ok I
guess,
> but the cost may be more than the value of the lenses. They're nice
lenses
> though, so I'm confused.
>
>
> One last comment. I got an interesting kit today and since some of you
like
> to hear about them, I'll mention it. I bought it to get the 35-105 that
was
> included. I like this lens a lot and can't wait to try it. It's in
mint
> condition, no wear at all. The one-touch is nice and smooth. It even has
a
> close focus feature that is a little unusual. The rest of the kit was
nicer
> than expected too. It came with a 50 1.8, an older SC. It also came with
a
> very nice 24 2.8 and the most interesting piece is a black OM-1, not an
MD.
> I've never even seen one without the motor drive connection.
>
> So, my last question. Does anybody have any idea what a black OM-1 is
> worth?
>
> Thanks to all.
>
> Night.
>
> Tom
>
>
> < 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 >
|