>Not true for reasons detailed above. What 65-200 were you using Joseph?
I sold the 65-200/4 several years ago and was using a 135/2.8 and 200/4
after that, then replaced those with the Vivitar zoom. sorry for the
faulty memory on the direction of the movement of the zoom. As I said,
I considered the 65-200/4 to be a fine lens.
>Oh, one more point. I owned a Vivitar 70-210 zoom. It literally fell
>apart in my hands one day. (Bring a spare, Joseph).
I could believe that if it was the latest version, 70-210/2.8-4.
But the classic Vivitar series 1 lenses are, if anything
overdesigned for ruggedness at the expense of being to heavy.
both the original 70-210/3.5 with 67mm filters (you'd be hard pressed
to find a more rugged lens than this from anyone, anywhere) and
the 70-210/3.5 with 62mm filter threads feel more rugged than any
zuiko zoom I've seen.
I really didn't mean for this to get into a debate about these
two lenses as I consider both to be quite good, as I said
in the original posting.
Joseph
< 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 >
|