At 07:46 AM 4/14/00 -0400, you wrote:
>All of the smaller Zuiko lenses (the 200 mm f/4 on down) share the same
>chintzy plastic construction. If you shake one, it rattles like a child's
>toy. The aperture ring has a loose, imprecise feel to it; I'm always
>afraid I'm going to break one off. Ditto for the spindly little
>depth-of-field preview button. At their price levels, you cannot expect
>Zeiss or Leitz quality from the Zuiko lenses, but they could have been
>designed with more ruggedness in mind.
I'd like to revisit this I as have considerable experience with Zuiko and
current Zeiss lenses, and Leica M lenses as well. I would have to disagree.
Zeiss lenses MAY be just a tad better finished, but not much. Certainly not
better than the best of the Zuiks, the 100/2, 90/2, 50/2, etc. I am really
a fanatic for a well made piece of equipment, and Olympus has their share.
Certainly there are differences between the feel of lenses in ALL camera
lines that I don't like. Even my M lenses. If it was up to me, every lens
in a product line would have exactly the same stiffness in focusing and
aperture ring. Yet they don't, not Zuiko, Zeiss, or Leica.
Perhaps the smaller Zuiks feel the way they do cuz they may have received
twenty years of continuous use. Oly users may not be as ready to send a 50
1.8 for a CLA the same way a Leica Summicron owner may--for obvious
reasons. And Oly users may actually use the stuff, unlike some owners of
high-end German equipment.
________________________________
Regards,
Denton Taylor
Photogallery at www.dentontaylor.com.
Panoramas and Immersive Imaging at
www.threehundredsixty.com
Join the RolleiSLR list at www.rolleislr.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 >
|