I had not heard that might be a problem with the 50/3.5. Even
though I've now got a 50/2, the little 3.5 is still my walkabout
macro.
And as far as the 65-200, at least mine, although when shining a
flashlight ("electric torch" for some of you) through the lens, it
looks really bad, it has surprisingly little effect on the photos
taken with it. I was using mine quite happily until I heard about
this problem that I had never noticed. Ignorance is bliss, and
I'm sorry I looked. Now it just sits forlornly, all alone, on a
shelf, no longer getting to go out for adventures. :-(
Walt
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A human being has a natural desire to have more of a good thing
than he needs. -- Mark Twain (defining the cause of Zuikoholism a
century ago)
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "John Hermanson" <omtech@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 08:59:41 -0500
>
>Lens defects exist in the 65-200, 8mm fisheye and 50mm f3.5 (?)
>not sure about the last one. Defect won't happen to all
>samples. Individual elements maybe were bad design or had
>defective coatings. The 65-200 defect is the 3rd element from
>the rear, and only that element. Apparently, it is not
>inevitable in every lens.
>----------------------------------------------------
>John Hermanson www.zuiko.com
>mail: omtech@xxxxxxxxx
>Camtech, Olympus Sales & Service since 1977
>21 South Lane, Huntington NY 11743-4714
>631-424-2121 Turnaround 5-7 weeks
>----------------------------------------------------
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|