John Cwiklinski wrote:
>
> C. H. Ling wrote:
>
> >>There was no "stiff aperture ring" problem with the five 36-70/3.6 I once
> >>own (still have one working, two bad glasses).<<
>
> Egad, what would you need 5 of these things for?
>
I got the first two with separated elements, can't be used. The third
one is okay but poor cosmetic. I want to find a real good one so
continue to search. Finally I manage to sell two working one and keep
one in so so condition. Still searching for damaged one for spare part
to repair the two with separated elements.
> In my humble opinion, the 35-70mm f3.5-4.5 is a better lens than the 3.6. It
> is lighter, easier to focus and appears to me to take the same quality
> pictures. If you look at the lens test page of Gary Reese, I believe Gary's
> results of the 2 lenses are about the same w/ a slight edge to the 3.5 -
> 4.5.
A single subjective test can't represent all. I once own the 3.5-4.5,
it is totally different from the 3.6. The 3.5-4.5 has higher contrast
and seems to be lower in resolution especially at the long end. High
distortion at 35mm end with distance object. Olympus put the 3.6 as a
high quality zoom while the 3.5-4.5 as a "S" version consumer lens, it
can't be wrong.
C.H.Ling
>
> John Cwiklinski
< 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 >
|