Joel Wilcox wrote:
>At 09:55 PM 6/6/1998 EDT, Gary wrote:
>Yup. There was some discussion several weeks ago about the various
>35-70's, which was abortive in a way, since as I recall the drift went
>towards skipping the 35-70 altogether and going for the 35-105. I did not
>participate in the discussion since I have experience with only the
>35-70/3.5-4.5 and I'm not likely ever to buy another zoom in this length,
>unless it is another 3.5-4.5 (they're cheap).
>
>The problems with this lens are somewhat "intellectual" ones: not a true
>zoom, variable f/stop, etc. But it is cheap, takes very good pictures, and
>is lighter and smaller than a Zuiko 85/f2. Nothing against other lenses,
>and if you've got more money to spend, you can undoubtedly do better. But I
>suspect it takes a lot more money to do a little better. (That's a rule,
>isn't it?)
>
Very well put, Joel. Exactly my words. This zoom really delivers sharp
images.
Ulf Westerberg
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|