Siri,
I own both ends of that lens spectrum. I have had the 1000/11 for many years
(12-14). I have only used it three times since acquiring it. Shortly after
buying it I picked up a 600/6.5 which I truly love. It is not that the images
from the 1000 are not good or that the 600 is superior, the 600 is just easier
to take around with me. The bonus is that the 600 is brighter.
As to the 8/2.8, I have had one for almost a decade. I use it far more often
than the 1000, but nowhere near as much as the 16/3.5 or 18/3.5. However, just
a month or so ago I used the 8/2.8 for the back cover photo of one of our local
Police Department's Annual Reports.
In regards to the bellows only macros, I do not have either of the earlier
designs that you mention. I do have one of the newer 38/2.8s that usually stays
on the telescoping auto tube. I have found it to be a great lens. I just don't
have enough of a use for it. Most of my macro needs are filled with the 50/2 or
90/2.
Mark
Siri Bjoner wrote:
> I recently found my Olympus lens list book (no cover, so I don't know it's
> proper title!) The very first lens mentioned is the 8/2.8.Also, the macros
> 20/3.5 and 38/3.5, and tele 1000/11. I have never heard mention of these on
> this list - were they never produced, or are they no good? ;-)
> I have no idea when this (90-page) booklet was produced, but all shots of
> bodies seem to use the OM-2.
>
> siri
>
< 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 >
|