On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 EdMall@xxxxxxx wrote:
<about the 35-105>
> But I own this
> lens...It is a fantasic lens...and I guess it hurts a bit to have it
> disparaged by people who really don't know.
Ed, in my Webster's, disparage means: "To speak slightingly of;
belittle." That hasn't happened here. Only its ancestry was questioned,
and I don't think we are so Zuikocentric here that we would consider
it disparaging if it DID turn out to have been a Tokina descendant.
Its brilliant performance was never in question, and I do own one,
even if I don't use it all that often (I prefer my 35-70/3.6).
*= Doris Fang =*
> To speculate it is other than homegrown Olympus,
> you must also cast doubts on all other Zuiko lenses. Without direct evidence,
> this speculation is irresponsible.
Ooookay. I see you really take umbrage at the idea of cross-pollination,
but try to understand it was never meant as any sort of put-down. It was
just a subject we explored, never settled on.
> Hmmm, Is the new OM2000 an Olympus or a Cosina?
What does the label matter ? It is the performance that counts.
> I have a 100-500 Cosina in
> the OM mount. Would that qualify as an Olympus?
Not in my opinion. Relax, please. It's not a big deal. Everybody
that has this lens on this list loves it, and if any of us put ours
up for sale (and mine is mint, since I've rarely used it), they
would be snapped up here.
*= Doris Fang =*
< 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 >
|