Ulf Westerberg wrote:
>Just like to add my comments on the 35-70/3.5-4.5:
>[...] it has a more than fair amount of barrel distorsion at the the 35mm
>setting. It's listed as 0.45%, but in real life it is very pronounced.
Funny, I haven't noticed this. Did anyone else? Could it be due to sample
variance? Btw, I've had that impression about the 35-105 barrel distortion.
Is it the figment of MY imagination?
>I ran into a mint 35/2.0 MC version for about 120 US$. Does anybody
>(Gary S.) care to compare sharpness of this prime with the zooms?
The 35/f2 is great -- I often use it as my standard lens. It's well
corrected, and, in my experience, sharp throughout its aperture range.
I'm confident you'll like it (admittedly, it's somewhat bulky).
Foxy wrote:
>When was the f3.5-4.5 released? I've never heard of this lens.
In the mid-80's, large US department stores and mail-order marketers, in
an effort to increase sales, pushed popular mid-priced SLR's prepackaged
with cheap, often 3-rd party, 35-70 zooms instead of the std. 50mm lens.
I believe that OLY had the 35-70/f3.5-4.5 zoom made expressly for this
purpose, and it was packaged with the OM-PC (OM-40). AFAIK, when this
zoom started getting good reviews, OLY decided to offer it as a separate
product.
>And why did Olympus release a f4 and f3.6 version of the same zoom
>length?
Dunno for a fact, but I'm sure I could come up with some plausible
conspiracy theory ;-)
Cheers,
/Gary Schloss.
Studio City, CA
schloss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
##################################################################
# This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List
# To receive the Olympus Digest send mail to: listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
# with subscribe olympus-digest in the message body.
#
# To unsubscribe from the current list send a message to
# listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with unsubscribe olympus in the message body.
#
# For questions email: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
##################################################################
|