On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:24:30 -0800, Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 03:00 PM, Siddiq wrote:
worse in what sense? is there a compelling reason to get the constant
aperture vs the 3.5-4.5 one?
For image quality from top to bottom in that zoom range I think it would
go 3.6, 4, 3.5-4.5. Same rank for size and weight. The 3.6 was the
deluxe highest quality lens when it came out and was Olympus' best
effort. Had a very nice hood which is difficult to find that fastened
farther up the barrel and the lens zoomed inside the hood giving
variable angle shading to the lens wide at wide angles and narrow at
telephoto. Besides its good resolution the images from it have a kind of
subtle, silky quality to them that is beautiful, but hard to pin down.
any idea why keh would rate the var. aperture lens 25$ more than the f4
for the same grade then?
--
/S
aim:iddibhai
icq:104079359
msidd004atstudentdotucrdotedu
< 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 >
|