>
> << The differences is apertures seems to be within the range of "error" often
> seen
> in measured values vs. rated values in lens tests, so it is quite possible
> they
> are the same lens. Of course, a close inspection of each would reveal much
> more.
>
> For those who have the Zuiko 35-105: does this lens bear the white "date
> code"
> lettering on the lens mount area like other Zuikos? I know the presence or
> absence of these letters proves nothing, but it would be interesting to
> know...
> >>
>
> On the bottom of mine are the letters "NIF4" in white about 3/32" high. So I
> guess that proves it was made by N*k*n?
As I said, this proves nothing, but would be interesting to know.
The date code question was a curiosity only: of my current Zuikos,
only *one* has this date code - the 50/1.8. My 85/2, 35/2.8 and
135/3.5 all lack this code.
> BTW, your close inspection of lenses to determine if they're the
same is
> useless without some method of testing the glass and materials. Of necessity,
> many lenses of similar length will look similar (and, of course, studying the
> competition's designs can help an engineer's creativity).
Useless? Even I as a reasonable experienced amateur, but with
only very basic technical knowledge of lens construction, could
probably conclude in some cases that two lenses are *not* of the
same design and/or manufactuer by close inspection. As to
concluding if there *are* of a common design and/or manufacturer,
no, I could not. But I suspect there are more than a few people on
this list who could make an informed opinion based on their
observations, such as comparing two or more samples, referring to
Olympus part code prefixes, etc.
While these "informed opinions," taken collectively, may still
represent insufficient evidence to conclude *who* actually made
this lens (or even who designed it), one thing is clear to me so far:
the evidence supporting the "out-sourced" theory outweighs the
homegrown Zuiko theory.
Since you seem so set on only making statements based on fact,
it seems your argument on the 35-105 are lacking in real evidence:
1: your sample is one unit - unless the 35-135 Tokina you mention
was a typo. If it were, that's still only *two* lenses.
2. Your only other piece of evidence if the Oly lit, which we all know
is marketing hype. The new OM-2000 zooms are Zuikos too, but
they are made by Cosina.
So rather than categorically refuting all claims in contrast to your
rather weak example above, why not lend some more constructive
input to this discussion?
< 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 >
|