Ohhhhh....You are an truly evil man to subject us to this extreme state of
personal euphoria. But....we can forgive you as we know you risked your
precious capital resources to achieve this rarified condition. Sharing the
results from this work of art is, of course, mandatory to achieve total
forgiveness. Enjoy. /jnm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Garth Wood
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 10:20 AM
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [OM] Zuiko 250/2.0: First impressions
>
>
> Well, the lens arrived yesterday via FedEx (with a brief stop at Canada
> Customs to collect a horrific amount of GST). Hands trembling, I opened
> the box, prised the custom-fitted case out, flipped open the latches and
> eased the case top back.
>
> Oh ... my ... *God*.
>
> If anything, the lens is in even *better* shape than the seller described
> it, almost indistinguishable from brand new. There's not a mark on the
> front or rear elements, no dust inside (unsurprising -- the
> 250/2.0 uses an
> internal focusing mechanism, so there's little opportunity for dust to
> enter the lens interior other than via the drop-in rear filter
> holder), no
> fungus, no haze, nothing, nada, bugger-all, squat, zip, zilch,
> zero, not a
> sausage. A slight coating of dust on the front external element yielded
> immediately to a blast of canned air. Original *everything* came packed
> with the lens.
>
> Wow, man.
>
> This thing is heavy. Oly specs says 3.9 kg (about 8.6 lbs.),
> which is the
> same as the 350/2.8. I did some hand-holding of it with an OM-2sp
> attached, imaging our neighbour's house across the street. Hard to do
> (but, surprisingly, not impossible -- though any lengthy session
> would have
> your arms trembling in no time). And is it ever BRIGHT! Focusing is
> smooth and silky, depth of field is amazingly shallow at wide apertures
> (our neighbour's front door is about 100 ft. [30 metres] from our
> living-room window, and when focusing on the lettering on the mailbox
> beside the door [which can't be more than a foot closer], the
> detail on the
> door is slightly out of focus).
>
> I'm still having problems understanding or accepting how this lens could
> have been sold to me for the price I bid. It's worth more, that's for
> sure. Please understand, I'm not gloating -- more like
> "dumbfounded." I'm
> having trouble understanding why the seller set his reserve so low, why
> others didn't bid past me, etc. In the shape it's in, this lens should
> have easily achieved a sale price approx. 750f new at B&H.
>
> I guess that's the downside of eBay. No one can actually handle the
> product, see for themselves all the details, answer all the
> niggling little
> questions about build quality, pride of ownership (affects second-hand
> quality), and so on.
>
> Well, those are my first impressions, both of the lens and of the curious
> circumstances which allowed me to win it. When I get a chance in
> the next
> few weeks, I'll run some test rolls through and post some results.
>
> Garth
>
>
> "What contemptible scoundrel has stolen the cork to my lunch?"
>
> -- W.C. Fields
>
>
> < 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 >
|