...and it doesn't look like those fingerprints are covering up nasty
scratches.
Besides, even if the seller is correctly stating that this 100/2 only fits
this OM-3, what is there to complain about:
OM-3 + 100/2 + 24/2. I'm game!
Bart
On 6/26/06, Walt Wayman <hiwayman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Let's give credit where credit is due, though. Despite the fact this
> seller apparently is not particularly knowledgeable about photo gear, he (or
> she) at least in part makes up for it by taking good, sharp photographs of
> the stuff. You're unlikely to see a more brutaly honest and revealing shot
> than this one of a 24/2 Zuiko clearly showing the filter ring ding and
> several big, greasy fingerprints on the front element.
>
> http://pictures.macrosysinc.net/rsw/180618/19406E.jpg
>
> Walt
>
> --
> "Anything more than 500 yards from
> the car just isn't photogenic." --
> Edward Weston
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: ScottGee1 <scottgee1@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > IMO . . . only if the price remains low.
> >
> > Buying from obviously inexperienced/ignorant sellers is always a crap
> > shoot. I do it only after subtracting the cost of serious repairs
> > from my final offer.
> >
> > I may be too conservative, but have no interest in buying a pig in a
> > poke. Of course, I'd go to Las Vegas for the shows, not the tables.
> >
> > ScottGee1
> >
> >
> > On 6/25/06, iwert <zuiko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > a 100f2 in the pictures, described as a 100 f2.8
> > > might be worth to ask if the pictures are of the item for sale...
> > >
> > > Could become a bargain,
> > >
> > > iwert.
> > >
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
