At 09:43 AM 1/24/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Take a look at this one, and then tell me if you know this person, or
>have ever dealt with him/her:
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1207877884
>
>The reason I'm curious is because the description says the lens is new
>and was only unwrapped to take pictures of it. But, if you look closely,
>the back cap (second photo) looks scratched, and it looks like there
>may be a scratch on the front element (last photo).
[snip]
Chris:
Actually, I think the problem is that the person has used too high a
compression level for the JPEGs he/she has posted. Pixelation artifacts are
common at higher compression settings, and that appears to be the case here.
By the way, Gary Reese's lens tests for the Zuiko 135/3.5 MC indicate that, for
a Zuiko, its quality is relatively mediocre at the wider apertures (its best
performance is at F/16). The 100/2.8 (and especially the 2.0!) are better
performers. $113.50 for this lens (even "brand new") is probably as much as
it's truly worth.
Garth
Serendipity (noun): The act of searching for a needle in a haystack, and
finding the farmer's daughter.
< 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 >
|