And now Hasselblad is selling a camera made for them by Fuji?
John
Winsor Crosby wrote:
> >Winsor Crosby wrote:
> >
> >> The rest sounds great! Especially the lenses that a lot of people might
> >> buy. I am not too warm to the idea of a 3d party supplier. It seems to me
> >> that if a few new lenses came out that we and Oly would like the reviews in
> >> the mags to say, "Wow! Great lenses. Olympus is still with us".
> >> - not "Olympus has supplied some rebadged lenses as a sop to the dwindling
> >> ranks OM enthusiasts."
> >
> >If Hasselblad and Leica don´t hesitate to sell Sigma lenses under there
> >name, why should Olympus? It´s at least not worse than Cosina.
> >
> >I personal would only accept a rebagded lens in an Zuiko grade build.
> >The storys about Sigma lense falling apart are not encouraging.
> >I doubt, that there are many optical designs by Sigma, which can compete
> >even with old Zuiko designs.
> >Some say the Sigma macro 180mm/2.8 has good glas, but it´s realy bulky,
> >heavy and the focusing distance is the same as the 135mm/4.5 macro
> >Zuiko. So I think an 180mm Zuiko and an 135mm macro Zuiko might be an
> >alternative to the Sigma.
> >
> >Actualy it´s not neccessary for Olympus to design every imaginable lens
> >as long as there is an alternative solution to do the job.
> >
> >Some 3rd party designs are not avaible as a Zuiko, like 70-210mm/2.8 or
> >14mm lenses, but it should not be forgoten, that several sources
> >indicate, that this lenses are not as good as the designs of reputable
> >camera makers.
> >And don´t forget the price! This 17-35mm/2.8 and 70-210mm/2.8 lenses
> >have prohibitive prices. Same is true of course with the matching bodys
> >>from Nikon and Canon.
> >After looking at there price list, an OM-3Ti looks less expensive.
> >
> >Everyone who´s thinking to change or to get a second camera brand should
> >calculate how much money it costs to get an system equal or better (if
> >posible) system than an Olympus one. And before asking for an 600mm/4.0
> >lens, think, if you realy need such a lens (how many people have actualy
> >bought such a lens?).
> >Have they considered the 350mm/2.8 Zuiko with 1.4x conveter (490mm/4.0)?
> >
> >Don´t forget, M Leica user are happy with an 135mm lens.
> >Isn´t the most used range of lenses between 28-200mm? Olympus covers
> >more than this range with an enormous number of lenses.
> >
> >The 180mm/2.8 is not good enough because is misses ED elements? Buy an
> >180mm/2.0 Zuiko. Is this zynic? No, or do Contax user have an
> >altenative?
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Richard
> >
> It does make you wonder how many individuals who have expressed interest in
> a new Zuiko lens design that would cost over a $1000 have bought one of the
> existing designs in that price range such as the 35-70/2.8, 180/2, 250/2
> and 350/2.8.
>
> 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 >
< 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 >
|