On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 22:27:20 -0000
"CyberSimian" <CyberSimian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> >Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 21:54:24 +1300
> >From: "Brian Swale" <bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Subject: [OM] ( OM ) Re: What's your standard setup?
>
> >I know the question wasn't directed to me, but I am a strong
> >supporter of this lens.
>
> One disappointing aspect of the 35-105mm zoom is that it is the
> lens with the most horriblest (**) aperture ring of any Zuiko. I
> got my mint sample via Ebay, but prior to that I examined two
> others in a shop, and all three had this horrible aperture ring.
Hmm...horrible, I dunno. It is not as smooth as my 24/2, but it is on
the other hand much better than some brand-lenses for
some-other-series-of-cameras, which the list admin will not let me
talk about here.... :)
I just tried mine, and it does not feel that bad, actually. I would
be tempted to guess that you might have gotten less-than-perfect
samples, except that you said that yours is mint?
> It feels as though the aperture ring is
> full of grit and in need of a generous squirt of WD40.
Yeah, try that, and tell us how that works out...on second thought,
perhaps you better not...:)
> As all
> three samples exhibited this characteristic, I surmise that this is
> normal for the 35-105mm Zuiko.
>
I think that mine does not have this characteristic. However since I
am in love with this lens, I may not be objective.
Hey, if you are anywhere near London in the UK, then I'll bring it
next time I go there such that you can try - deal?
--thomas
> -- from Cy in the UK
>
> (**) The grammarians among you will have noticed that "most
> horriblest" is a double superlative, and therefore grammatically
> incorrect. However, even Shakespeare used double superlatives on
> occasion, for dramatic effect (see"Hamlet").
< 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 >
|