On Ven, 19 giu 1998 10:53, PCACala@xxxxxxx <mailto:PCACala@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>The 135's have lost inflation adjusted value (used) over the last decade.
My
>take is that there were produced in very large quantities and are now slow
>movers. The 100 has appreciated slightly and the 85 significantly, thus
>indicating the 100's were either produced in greater quantity than the
85's,
>or the 85 has a higher demand to supply ratio than the 100's and
especially
>the 135's. Nothing profound here - just an analysis which shows no
relation
>to cost of manufacturing
85 2, 100 2.8 and 135 3.5 are very similar and I think of very close
manifacturing cost, but the perception of their brightness/quality is
different in the mind of users/collectors. f/2 looks BRIGHT, quite close to
the 85 1.8 of other manifacturers. 135 3,5 lenses became very common in
sixties/seventies (I think because rangefinder standard longest tele
available) and even if their quality is (more often than not) outstanding
their prices dropped down. Every brand has stopped manifacturing them now.
The last was Contax if I remember well.
And yes, 135mm is often quite too long to take pictures at home (it depends
on which kinda home you have), while it is not very long when going out.
Another point is the success of 70-210 range zooms. No reason to have
another lens in the same range of lenght, brightness and (less often)
quality.
Marco
< 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 >
|