> Mattias Tidlund [mailto:mtd98005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
> ...So here I am with two bodies and one Zuiko. On the top of my
> wish list is a 135 and a 28. Today I found a very nice and
> clean 135/3.5 Silvernose. The price was 350 SEK ($40). Is
> this a good deal?...Maybe it is just stupid
> stinginess buying a 135/3.5 instead of 135/2.8?
Welcome, Mattias.
My buying of the 135/3.5 (not "silvernose") was based on supply
- I could not find a 135/2.8. FWIW, the 3.5 lens is a great lens,
in both feel (the way it "balances" on the OM1, its small
complementary size), quality (of optics and build), and, to be
honest, in looks - it just "looks" wonderful matched up with that
OM1 body (okay, this is probably irrelevant visual aesthetics,
but it does, okay? <grin>).
Saying that, I've never seen a 135/2.8 in the flesh, so rely
on others for that opinion, okay? I'd probably have bought one
if I could have found one.
Prices? Well I have the following bookmark to Skip Williams
website where there's a page of Zuiko Eb*y history (average prices)
including enormous detail and downloads of data (I've not
thought about it properly before, Skip. That's a bloody good
effort on your part!):
http://www.skipwilliams.com/olympus/zuiko_ebay_history.htm
Again, welcome. It'll be interesting, with your studies of
pedagogics, to hear what your views are should ever that subject
of the Leicaphile photography teacher come up again :-)
Cheers
Marc
Sydney, Oz
< 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 >
|