I think most of them were. The pattern, especially later in the
history, was that they would run out of a lens meaning the last one
stored in the warehouse was sold, but a new production line would be
set up and the still in production lens would become available maybe
six months later. People became aware of this when sales were low and
no reason for such a delay if they had their own facility. I don't
think there was any question that the late 35-80/2.8 was done that
way. There was no lens production preceding it or following it. If
they had a permanent lens facility from the beginning it seems like
they would have maintained it, but I think the later pattern was
probably the pattern from the beginning. They were smart enough to
anticipate that keeping a permanent lens facility for a low
production camera was not economic.
That is not to say that the lenses are not unique or high quality
because they certainly are and many were state of the art.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Mar 21, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Chris Crawford wrote:
>
> What OM lenses do you think were subcontracted?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|