My first reply seems to have got lost, so this is a repeat......
As far as I recall, the list price of the f3.6 was double that of the f4.
Olympus marketed the 3.6 as being at least as good as prime lenses within its
35-70 zoom range. The f4 was marketed as being more affordable. The f3.5-4.5
replaced the f4 - it was lighter and more flexible.
Prices of Zuiko Zooms from 'Popular Photography' Nov 1989 B & H:
35-70 f3.6 $374.95
35-70 f3.5-4.5 $167.95
35-105 f3.5-4.5 $317.95
65-200 f4 $249.95
50-250 f5 $399.95
I recently acquired a 35-105 (for under $50 !), which is not much bigger than
the 3.6. I like it a lot, but the build quality of the 3.6 seems to be on a
higher plane. Also the 35-105 has a funny little screw-in lens hood, which gives
very little protection at 105 telephoto. As Lars Bundesen stated, the 3.6 has a
pushon lenshood, that functions as a short lenshood at 35mm, where the lens is
at maximum extension, and as a deep lenshood at 70mm, where the lens is
shortest; it also reverses over the lens, giving very good protection. The front
element does not rotate, ideal for polarising filters.
I think of the 3.6 as the 70/80's precursor to the 35-80 2.8.
Briefly, I would rate the 3.5-4.5 as the best all-purpose lens, the 3.6 as the
best performing and best built, and the f4 as fine if you do not have one of the
other two!
Regards, Roger Key Copenhagen
>Also, Is there some reason the f3.6 commands about twice the price of the
>f4.0? Is it that much sharper or do people simply prefer a slightly faster
>lens and are willing to pay the price?
>Franklin Berryman
________________________________________________________________________
< 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 >
|