On 28 Jan 2001, at 1:42, Doggre@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > Sometime ago, Tom sent me *two* lenses (35-
> > 70/3.6 and 35-70/4) to take a look at, so I could pick the one I wanted.
> > Had it not been for Cori's personal "escort" to the Post Office to
> > return the "unwanted" lens, I'd have kept both!
>
> So tell us, Chris, which one did you like best and keep, and why?
I kept the 3.6 and sent the 4 back. Both were WAY nice (which is why
I wanted to keep 'em both!), and the prices for both were RIGHT (no, I
*won't* tell!), but the 3.6 was a teenie-weeny bit better for output quality.
Nothing major or worth "diss'ing" the 4, but the 3.6 was just a little bit
"crisper," particularly opened right up.
While we're on the subject of the 35-70/3.6 zuiko... Yeah, I'll admit it's
a bit bigger and heavier than the 4 (and the 3.5-4.5 I hear, although I've
never seen one), it's not THAT much of a difference, IMHO. In fact, the
35-70/3.6 is now my "standard" lens on the OM-2 and get's LOTS of
use.
Again, THANKS, Tom, for "doing that deal." I'm STILL wishing, though,
that you wudda parted with the 3.5-4.5 so's I cudda given it a proper
test! :-)))
Regards,
Chris
---
I'm *not* a Zuikoholic.... I'm a Zuikohobbiest!
Chris O'Neill (coneill@xxxxxxxxxxx)
http://www.nucleus.com/~coneill
< 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 >
|