Brian Swale wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> A Zuiko 35-80 just slipped through my fingers ! Maybe it wasn't even close.
> See *Bay item 290319399823
>
How much did you miss, really? At least based on the images you post
here, low light without flash and/or tripod doesn't seem to be your
thing. Maybe what ol' Walt had to say on the subject in 2002 will ease
your mind:
> Yo, Gang,
>
> ... There hasn't even been a minor brouhaha going, much less a major
> controversy. Too much agreement makes
> Zuikoholics dull boys (and girls). So, consider this:
>
> I've had my fabled, much desired, jewel-in-the-crown of Zuikos, the
> 35-80/2.8, for a few months now, and I am definitely underwhelmed. My
> 28-105/2.8 Tamron kicks its butt in zoom range, is at least its equal in
> sharpness and contrast, and, for those who really concern themselves about
> such esoteric BS, gives bokeh every bit as good. (If you perceive a need for
> the imagined magic of mystical and ethereal bokeh so as not to distract from
> the subject of the picture you've taken, maybe you should've chosen a better
> subject and/or been a better photographer. If folks' attention wanders off
> into the background of your pictures, you've been wasting
> film.)
>
> Further, unless always shooting from a tripod with mirror and diaphragm
> pre-fire, as long as there's a reasonable amount of light, the 35-105/3.5-4.5
> Zuiko is every bit as good, has more range, weighs and costs considerably
> less, being a one-touch is quicker and easier to use, and it doesn't need
> weird-sized filters that fit none (?) of the other Zuikos.
>
> So why am I disparaging this lens, especially since I may be offering it to
> the highest bidder any day now, either here or elsewhere? Beats me. Maybe
> it has something to do with the Christmas spirit. Or perhaps it's the
> Christmas spirits.
Maybe you just need a 35-105/3.5-4.5. :-) Walt doesn't mention how
little slower than the 35-80 it is in practice. I don't know just what
its speed is at 80 mm, but I'll bet it's no worse than f4.0, which is
only one stop slower.
> Rose early to track and set things up for an 8.20am close
>
> Yes, I did use a snipe tool but the stupid thing bid 14 seconds prior!!
> Clearly someone on broadband or a better sniper had an easy task.
>
I agree with Chuck. I'll bet it was simply someone willing to pay more.
When I first used eBay, I was fooled by the excitement of the chase more
than once into overbidding in the last seconds. Fortunately, I didn't
always win even then. It seems to me that the prudent way to bid on
items like this, if I really want it, is to decide how much I am willing
to pay, set the snipe and forget it. Then, if I am anxious, add 10%.
When someone beats me by a small amount, my first thought is that I
could have won for just a little bit more. But I can't really know that.
The other biddre may have sniped at a much higher maximum that the item
went for. I've been on the other end of that, pleasantly surprised to
get something for significantly less than I was willing to pay. If the
runner up thought he was just a few $ short, he was wrong.
If bidding on something I'm not sure I really want, or I am looking for
a deal on, it's still the same thing, just a lower snipe bid. Patience
with a string of lowish bids has paid off in the end for me quite a bit.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|