Wayne Harridge wrote:
> While the 18/3.5 is a brilliant optical design (especially considering when
> it was released), I think the mechanical design is pathetic.
I suppose the mechanical design is a part of the original Maitani vision
of a small, light system. Every other brand of super-wide at the time
was a huge, heavy monster. I've got a case for a Nikon 18/3.5; the
Zuiko, even with hood, just rattles around loose in it, taking up maybe
2/3 the space.
> The hood/filter ring should have been part of the lens body not a fiddly
> screw on accessory which had to be purchased separately. I just can't think
> of any situation when I have needed to use this lens where the hood/filter
> ring had to be removed.
Exactly. From my perspective, having bought one with hood, generic 72mm
cap (Since replaced with one that says "Olympus") and a nice, generic
case that fits that combo perfectly, it's not an issue. I simply treat
it as though the hood were permanently attached.
> Also the slip on lens cap (same as for the 16mm fisheye)is also cheap, crappy
> design and manufacture.
>
I only keep mine in case I ever decide to sell the lens. Never have used it.
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/
|