Hi guys,
Thanks for the feedback about the C/D Soligors. The moment has passed
and my pulse-rate is back to normal now <g>.
However, it sounds as though some of these (and I've seen the 135 and 200
specifically mentioned as being VERY good) are worth watching for.
Sometime, maybe.
BTW, are there other magazines / journals apart from Pop Photo and the one-
time Modern Photography, that publish objective lens and camera tests?
I don't get ShutterBug; far too expensive here. Do they do tests? Any others?
What about in non-English-language journals? Any?
Brian
> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:20:49 -0700
> From: "Timpe, Jim" <Jim.Timpe@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [OM] ( OM ) desirable OM-fit 200 passed up :-(
>
> I have one CD soligor lens. It's a 70/220 F3.5 that's really a great
> performer, but weighs about three and a half ton.
>
> Bought a friend a CD 500mm mirror lens for his C*non, haven't seen any
> results yet (he's on vacation right now snapping away).
>
> I've never had a particularly bad Soligor lens, but then perhaps I'm lucky.
>
> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 15:36:42 -0700
> From: "John Cwiklinski" <plinkochips@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [OM] ( OM ) desirable OM-fit 200 passed up :-(
>
> Brian wrote:
>
> >>
> ...about Soligor C/D lenses ( = Computer Designed) - the 135 and 200 are
> something very special.
>
> This one looks really interesting. Anybody here have experience of them?
> <<
>
> I have the Soligor 200mm f2.8 . It is a one-touch lens, very heavy and quite
> awkward to work with. I contacted Soligor and asked if there was a tripod
> mount
> for the lens. The lens was not designed for a tripod mount. The slightest
> camera
> movement is picked up on film, usually as a blur. I then used a monopod or
> tripod (camera mounted) and worried the shoot duration (soccer game) that the
> camera body flange was going to warp. If you can stabilize, it takes decent
> pictures.
>
> John Cwiklinski
> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 23:11:09 -0700
> From: Jim Couch <jamesbcouch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [OM] ( OM ) desirable OM-fit 200 passed up :-(
>
> I have one of these as well. (Actually my daughter has it now). It atually is
> a
> very nice lens, but is actually about 1/2-2/3 of a stop slower in actual light
> transmission than 2.8. It is also, as John noted, quite a beast! Impressive
> front element!
>
> Jim Couch
< 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 >
|