I'd say that a lot can indeed, depend on the lens. While not in the way
you're thinking, that there maybe wasn't much- if any- difference between the
two
samples originally, but for the fact that now, in 2004, used examples of a 25
year old lens can vary greatly. Someone can have a great 'early' lens, and
someone else can have a poor performer of a 'late' lens. A lot depends on how
that
lens was stored, used, and generally cared for in these past 20 to 25 years.
It can have haze, dust, and fungus. It could have been improperly cleaned, and
it also could have been well-cared for and had a CLA by a former owner,
unknown to today's user.
Just something I've learned from using eBay!
George S.
tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Better is subjective. In the 'tests', it seems to be quite a bit better than
the earliest 1.4, but the difference between the 895 and 1.08 would depend
on the photographer more than the lens.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Tan" dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> How much "better" is the >1.08mill than earlier numbers?
> My 895 seems great and I really can't complain.
>
> DanTan
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|