Moose,
thanks for your opinion and experience with the lens and other zuiko's.
It has given me a little hindsight into the lens on a practical level. Speaking
of that, I do have large, but skinny fingers which is a little difficult
sometimes on the OM's, but with a Winder attached like I permanently do, Its
all relatively fine.
Ive got to do our graphics for a company website in the next week, so I will
let the list and you know when it is up and running with all the 'tech' specs.
This is where I am hoping to put my 4Ti and 35-70 3.5~4.5 to the test (and the
rest of the kit)!
Chow and happy snaps to all!
Damo
dreammoose <dreammoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: As Gary noted in his test, ergonomic
satisfaction with this lens can
vary a lot with different individuals. I love the diminutive size, but I
have relatively long, slender fingers. I'm sure people with relatively
large and/or blunt fingers could find operation more difficult. I find
fit, finish and feel to be up to that of my (many) other Zuikos. I think
it's a perfect match to the OM-PC and have no trouble focusing on OM-PC
bodies. The close focus is also really a nice feature (and better than
the 35-80).
The 35-80/2.8 is a whole different thing, cost aside, as it is about
twice as long and about 3.5x the weight. Even the 35-70/3.6, at only
twice the weight and 1.5x the length is bulky and heavy enough to create
a different 'experience' of picture taking. A 35-70/3.5-4.5 on an OM-PC
is light, casual and free. A big lens on a single digit OM is heavier
and more serious. Sometimes I feel like serious photography, sometimes I
don't.
Moose
Damon Wood wrote:
>Tom wrote:
>
>You'll love it. The 3.5-4.5 is one of my favorite, and most used,
>
>lenses!
>
> Thanks for the responses guys.
>
> Yes I got the lens and it was the 3.5~4.5 Zuiko. The lens is very
> light and there is quite a lot of MC glass for a slow lens.
>
> Though there are a few things (as Ralf mentioned) that Im not
> 'over-happy' with.
>
> On the general, the lens isnt as easy to use as I originally
> thought. Plenty of practice will see me through though.
>
> 1) Firstly, looking at the lens, the overall build quality
> compared to what (in my opinion) I call a Zuiko is to an extent
> pretty average. It reminds me of the OM2000 in terms of
> comparatible quality to the actual OM system.
>
> 2) Focusing is not a easy at all. Contrary to this, the apeture
> ring is too close to the bayonet when mounted making it hard to
> use (especially if the shutter ring is stopped right down when in
> 'M' Mode).
>
> Though, I havnt taken pics with it yet. I assume from Gary Reese's
> lens test that it is actually a very good performer. From looking
> at the glass (9E), theres probably no reason why it wont.
>
> The focal range is what I really got it for. If I did have the OM
> $, Id buy without a doubt C.H. Ling;s 35 - 80 f2.8 What a lens is
> all I can say!
>
< 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 >
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger for SMS- Now send & receive IMs on your mobile via SMS
|