On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Tal Lancaster wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jul 2002 17:06:09 +0800
> "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > If you are searching for 35-70/3.6 and 65-200, please take extreme
> > care in the inspection of the lens element inside. The 35-70/3.6 has a
> > common problem of element separation on a rear lens group. The 65-200
> > has a common problem of an inside element (also rear group) getting
> > oil vapor on the surface, when long enough without attention, the
> > element will permanent damage. I found two 35-70/3.6 and two 65-200
> > has these problem and hard the same problem from my friends too.
> >
> [Snip..Snip]
>
> Thanks. Sound like I should stear clear of those two. What are good
> alternatives are there that are about as good optically, but are less
> prone to problems?
>
>
I've got a Zuiko 35-105, that I have always been happy with. Thus far, it
has shown no problems for me. However the 35-80/2.8 is said to be really
good too. Sadly, it is also really really expensive.
--
-------------------------------------------
Thomas Heide Clausen
Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
M.Sc in Computer Engineering
E-Mail: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop
-------------------------------------------
< 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 >
|