Acer quoted from http://members.aol.com/eting/om.html (an
amateur astronomy site) and asked for some comments.
> All of the smaller Zuiko lenses (the 200 mm f/4 on down) share the same
> chintzy plastic construction.
A bit gaudy, yes. But at least they don't look like 19th
century plumbing fixtures, like some other brands.
> If you shake one, it rattles like a child's toy.
There, now that's a solution for Olaf and others. "It's not another
lens, it's a rattle for little Piet". They don't rattle once mounted,
so don't let this rattle you.
> The aperture ring has a loose, imprecise feel to it;
> I'm always afraid I'm going to break one off.
Yes, even on otherwise mint lenses. It's common to most Japanese
lenses I've used, but Zuikos do seem to be by far the worst.
> Ditto for the spindly little depth-of-field preview button.
It's just the right size for my finger. I just had a vision of rows
of Nikon/Canon/Leica owners pumping iron with their pinkies.
> At their price levels, you cannot expect
> Zeiss or Leitz quality from the Zuiko lenses, but they could have been
> designed with more ruggedness in mind.
What, those Zeiss lenses with the plastic bodies?
Much of the quoted page is actually a review of the Leica R system,
and the author seems to think weight for its own sake is a (good)
feature of German engineering. Presumably he hasn't taken a close look
at the design of the VW Beetle, which in 1934 had a magnesium alloy
crankcase and an almost monocoque construction... and which
has been rallied in practically stock form. Nor do I believe
hand-made items are necessarily better quality - usually the
reverse, in fact.
The page does knock the OM-2SP for its battery molestation,
and the OM-4 for its complex user interface, which I at least
think is fair. He also buckets the 50 f/1.8 for its wide-open
performance - any comments?
< 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 >
|