Hey, the 50/1.2 is only 85-90 grams heavier than the 1.8. Not a huge
weight penalty.
Tom
On 5 Jan 2001, at 10:36, sayeth Winsor Crosby <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >I'm a true proponent of the original OM-1 theory. Small and light. I
> >>almost always prefer the smaller lens to the larger lens.
> >
> >I'm thinking that the slower lenses were built as "starter" or "amatuer"
> >lenses, and the faster ones built as "professional". I don't have any really
> >fast zuiko lenses, mostly because I can't afford them, not because I don't
> >want them. But, the slow lenses are "good enough" for my use, and certainly
> >easier to carry around. I do have some faster third party lenses that I
> >rarely use, except for a Sigma 18mm/f2.8 that I really like, inspite of the
> >fact that it's performance is not that good.
> >--
> >Be Seeing You.
> >Dirk Wright
> >
> I think that the statements when the OMs came out set the pole a
> little higher. They said the goal was smaller, lighter, and quality
> equal to or better than anybody else's lenses. The later lenses were
> true "push the envelope" lenses many of which have not been bettered
> by Oly competitors.
-----------------------------------(no spam please)
Tom Trottier <TomATrottier@ home.com> ICQ: 57647974
Abacurial Information Technology Consulting
400 Slater St. Suite 415, Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7S7
__o +1 613 291-1168 fax:594-5412 (877)247-8796
_ \ < Vote for your favourite Olympus camera at
(+)/'(+) http://www.freevote.com/booth/fav_camera
Mensa Ottawa: http://www.egroups.com/MensaOttawa
< 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 >
|