on 6/17/02 12:59 PM, Chris Barker at imagopus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Strange, Roger ...
>
> The 35/2 and 85/2 go for over twice that normally, but Jessops has a
> strange secondhand pricing policy.
>
> I managed to bag a pretty mint 50/1.2 today (with box, instructions
> and guarantee from about 1994). It was meant to be like new, but it
> has a little of the paint worn off part of the aperture ring. I
> spoke to the vendor who swears that it has not been on a camera
> (looks like it with no scratches on the mounting plate) or been in a
> camera bag. Has anyone heard of the paint job being a little fragile
> on these lenses?
>
> ... but it is quite a bit bigger than my 50/1.4 SC which I quite
> like, so I am wondering which niche of Barker photography this
> standard lens will fit into.
>
> Chris
Chris -- The word on the 50/1.2 and my experiences since I got one a few
weeks ago are that it will serve as your best normal lens, for everything.
You might find that a 50/1.4 with a high serial number (e.g. >1,100,000)
will be equal, but not better. Use it for everything, and enjoy it!
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< 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 >
|