>Friends,
>
>I have a Zuiko 100/2.8 reserved for me until Monday 17 for a price of
>SEK 495 (US$ ~62) + SEK 85 (US$ ~11) for shipping. A good price I think.
>
>Now, the reason I write is to hear any comment on the 100/2.8. How good
>is it? I have been looking through the tests at R. Lee Hawkins' page,
>but the info on the 100/2.8 is way under the info on the 100/2. So I
>would like to hear if anyone of you list members have the Zuiko 100/2.8,
>if so, what can you tell?
>
>At the moment I have the Zuiko 75-150/4 but I will get other (fixed
>focal length) lenses in that range to get more speed. The plan for the
>future is to get the 85/2, 100/2 or 2.8, 135/2.8. I will also get the
>180/2.8 as a compliment to my 200/4.
>
>The condition of the 100/2.8?
>Well, it is said to be 3 of a scale from 1-4 (1=bad, 4=top), but I have
>to see for myself as I have seven days to regret and send it back
>besides for the six month warranty.
>
>Got to buy it, don't you think?
>
>--
>Regards/
> Ingemar Uvhagen
> Gislaved, Sweden
>
Are any of the Oly lenses dogs? From time to time I have heard references
to a particular lens from another maker as one of their dogs and one to
avoid. The only negative reference I have ever heard to an Oly lens is one
remark in a mag that the 40/F2 lacked sharpness and contrast, but that does
not seem to be born out by the enthusiasm on this list for it. If it were
so bad I doubt people would suggest it as a substitute for the exquisitely
sharp Leitz 35mm Summicron for street shooting. So with these questions of
whether this or that Oly lens is good, should we decide which Oly lenses,
if any, should be avoided like the plague and publish that on the list?
Winsor
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx
< 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 >
|