Dirk Wright wrote:
>35/1.4 or 1.8
isn't f/2 close enough to f/1.8? OK, 1.4 would be nice for the richies/pro's
who could afford them. but count me out.
>85/1.4 or 1.8
See above.
>50/1.0
f1.2 not fast enough? Buy some lighting gear, or faster film. And who else
does an f1.0?
>80-200/2.8
Okay, pass (though someone else cited the Tamron)
Mike Swaim wrote:
>why can't I buy the 35-180 or 28-110 lenses similar to those in the IS-3
>and IS-20 as separate lens barrels for older OM's?
Would you want to? Or would you then be complaining that they have crummy
max. apertures which are not fast enough? And isn't any lens line going to
have gaps? Olympus are hardly claiming to be at the top of the pro user's
list, so why should they carry on spending large sums of money on r&d when
there aren't the sales to justify it? Most who chipped in recently admitted
that they don't buy new, so where's the motive? Try finding a top sports or
wildlife photog who would go with MF over AF - there are *rare*. So no point
developing a 600mm f4 if only 4 people in the USA and a couple of chaps in
Japan are the only ones who will use them. We've been over this ground
before - Olympus are not trying to compete with Canon & Nikon because those
2 have most of the market sewn up already. It's an area where it could be a
very costly exercise in proving that you can't "come from behind" in such a
fiercely competitive field.
Instead of moaning about the lack of esoteric lenses in the OM line, why not
do one of the following:
1. tear yourself away from the PC, get your camera out and make some
photographs with the lenses you already own,
or:
2. sell it and buy something else (either another brand of SLR or try a
different hobby).
Sorry if this seems a little blunt, but I think the words "flogging" and
"dead horse" spring to mind.
Simon E.
< 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 >
|