Don't forget the 21 and 24, and 85/2!
Gary Edwards
www.peopleplacesflight.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Wayne Culberson
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 3:38 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Re: 135/2.8 (was a digestreply)
On Thu, 15 May 2003 10:38:10 -0700
"Douglas Tourtelot" <tourtelot1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Can anyone tell me if the Zuiko 135/2.8 has a bad reputation? I
> was comparing prices and it is always radically less expensive than
> the 100/2.8. Just more made, or not as good? Or both?
I have both, but like the 100/2.8 much better, mainly because it is so much
smaller, and uses 49mm filters. The price difference may be reflected in the
fact that there are many 135's for sale, both zuikos and third party ones.
There is not much choice for the 100 length.
On the subject of 49mm lenses, I am in the process of looking for a bargain
135/3.5, just to make up a kit of all 49mm lenses. I have 28mm, 35mm (on
order), 50mm of course, and 100mm.
Wayne
< 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 >
< 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 >
|