> If the OM system had to be known for single outstanding thing, I'd have to
> say their wide-angle lineup was one of, if not *the* single best thing the
> system. The fast teles, Macro lineup and overall commitment to smallness
> would be close runner-ups. It's amazing that some 20-30 years down the road,
> some of the OM glass still holds its own or remains unbeaten even by more
> modern optics from Canon, et al.
Not only holds its own... There really has been no substitute for the
250/2 or the 350/2.8. And let's not even bring up the subject of the
100/2...
There are really only three manufacturers that put all their eggs in
the lens basket and let the cameras generally suck in comparison to
the competition. Olympus, Zeiss and Leica. Canon learned years ago
that sizzle sells and feature bloat was more profitable than lens
quality. Not to pick on Canon, because that's not my intent, but you
do have to be choosy when selecting Canon lenses, whereas O-Z-L lenses
are pretty much all top-grade across the entire lineup. Sure, there is
a dog in there once in a while, but not as a general rule. Nikon has
its moments, but most of their lenses are in the "very good" category.
There are select lenses out there that are better than Nikons, but
it's hard to get a bad one. (except for the recent disaster kit
lenses). Once in a while there is a Nikon lens which has no equal.
Olympus OM system had one failing. No F1.4 glass in wide and telephoto
lenses. The F2 glass was probably a good compromise, though, and
didn't push the mirror-chamber vignetting issue very much.
But those special big-white telephotos.... Yum. Someday I'll have a
350/2.8 and/or 250/2. My wife says "lens or sportscar, take your
pick."
...I'm thinking...
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|