On 3/8/2013 3:15 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> ...
>
> Curiously the newer 14-42 II R.Oly. doesn't seem to be much different
> from the II except the cosmetics--not quite sure.
It is strictly a cosmetic change, "R" for redo, or some such. To quote Moose,
back on 2/2:
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Oly's cosmetic redesign of the M.Z zoom lenses, from film Pen style to the
12-50 style, proceeds apace.
The 14-42 II R, 40-150 R, and now the 75-300 II.
<http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/telephoto.html#i_075-300mm_f048-067_olympus>
What will be next, the 9-18 or the 14-150? Oh, the suspense!
It seems that the 'R' designation means a cosmetic change, while 'II' means a
lens change. So, the 14-42 was optically
and mechanically redesigned to a 'II', then cosmetically redesigned to become a
'II R'.
It seems the only non-cosmetic changes to the 75-300 are new coatings, and a
new, lower price. So very kind of Oly to
send me an email touting the new 75-300, now "$350 less than" the one I bought.
Fortunately, it's the same price I
actually paid. "
-----------------------------------------------------------
> They made the II version tighter and quieter for video and it markedly
> reduced the shutter shake
> issue as well.
Can that have really been the lens? I'm not sure I can see how, short of the
firmware signaling the body to a short delay.
> The II has one less element and doesn't focus quite as close either,
> but it is still better overall all things considered.
>
> Thanks for thinking about this,
Like I could help myself. ;-)
> Clearly fell down a rabbit hole, paying close attention,
Welcome to my world. One pill makes your head spin, the other makes you dumb ...
Alice Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|