The problem didn't appear to be haze or fungus as I'd seen it before,
but did look like something was wrong with the coating. Almost like
someone had cleaned the rear element by flooding it with solution,
and some had leaked into the lens. I'll have to see what the cleaning
does and final price will be, it may be worth it, maybe not.
I suppose that if I'm justifying the purchase of more Zuikos on the
basis that I'll be able to slap them onto an EOS or E-thingy in the
future, I better go for the best examples I can find.
Unrelated, but I've also come across two 90/2 macros locally in the
last couple of weeks. Nice lenses, but I'm not a macro guy. One was
VERY nice, one more of a user. If anyone is interested I can get you
the contact info for the dealers that have (had) them...
-mike
On Oct 25, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Winsor Crosby wrote:
>
> The 85/2 is one of the really nice OM lenses.
>
> I would pass on this lens. Stuff, if fungus, tends to remove the
> coating and etch the glass. Plus why take a lens that has been taken
> apart and reassembled by someone whose quality of work is unknown.
>
> The move to multicoating sometimes involved improvements to the lens,
> not just coatings. If you look at Gary Reese's site the multicoating
> 85/2 he tested resolved better than the single coating one.
>
> http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm
>
> I would be patient. One will turn up.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|