Philip Pemberton wrote:
In message <3F0A00B6.2040004@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I can't imagine it would be economical to spend anything on repair of
that lens, unless it has sentimental value. There are so many of the
same or similar lenses available cheap and a lot of newer design.
Well, I was certainly given the royal screw-over with that lens... GBP 65 in
1997...
Lesson #1: Buy a Zuiko next time
If looking for a 65-200/4, be aware that many suffer from a hazy element
near the rear. It's my impression that more listees with this lens have
reported this problem than who have reported not having it. There are
also reports of recurrence after cleaning. Be sure to check!
If considering the 50-250/5, be aware of it's reputation for bad bokeh.
It can be seen clearly in C.H.'s invaluable bokeh tests
<http://www.accura.com.hk/OM/b200mm.htm>
Lesson #2: Check the aperture diaphragm is OK before buying...
And peer in to check for visible oily marks that may mark a
pre-symtomatic stage.
Moose
< 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 >
|