a 45/2.8 that is only 11/16" thick is a tech
demonstration, I can't see how it would ever be a
practically useful lens considering it has to have an
apeture as well as a focusing ring and a lens mount. I
can imagine fumbling and breaking something like that
very easily.
Mark Lloyd
Ah, the accusation leveled at the OM 40/2. Actually the Nikon web
page gives the length as .7 of an inch. 11/16 " is closer to the
25mm given by Oly for the 40/2 and many on the list love it.
Personally I don't think that the 25 mm is enough of an advantage
over the 33 mm of a 35/2.8 to make up for the price difference. What
was the old cigarette commercial, "A silly millimeter longer"?
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
?
< 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 >
|