Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Survey

Subject: Re: [OM] Survey
From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 00:19:47 -0500
At 22:37 3/18/02, George S. wrote:
Josh,
I don't want to be negative here, but IMO, finding out what lenses are most popular won't show you anything, because many of us have many 50 1.8s
[snip]
So, my point is, sheer numbers will not prove that one lens is the most popular, since many of us did not set out to collect as many 50 1.8 lenses as we now have in our posession.
IMO, you should ignore all 50 MMs.

Best,
George S.

I agree with George with couple different twists to it. I believe the numbers will be skewed by the relative population sizes of certain lenses. George mentions the 50/1.8 Standard for good reason; the population size of this lens is immense. Olympus made a Googol of them. These have outlived many, many of the "consumer" OM-10 bodies they were originally sold. The OM-10 and its successors are usually scrapped because they're not economically repairable (except perhaps the OM-PC). The cost of a CLA/overhaul is very nearly the cost of simply replacing it with another in EX or EX+ condition.

One of the other ubiquitous lenses is the 75-150 f/4 Zoom. This was one of the "trilogy" Olympus heavily marketed with the OM-10 and its sister bodies. The other two are the 50/1.8 (shouldn't be a surprise) and the 28/3.5 WA until it was replaced with the 28/2.8 WA. Perhaps the 28/3.5 isn't quite as common because it was discontinued after 7 years with the introduction of the 28/2.8 WA in 1981, about a year after the OM-10 was introduced. OTOH the 75-150/4 continued from 1974 to 1985; another four years in the high sales numbers (for bodies).

Among those with a low population (I won't say they are "rare"), but "unsatisfied" high demand are the 21/2, 90/2 Macro and 100/2 Telephoto. These three immediately come to mind; there may be a couple others. I have deliberately excluded the truly rare, e.g. 40/2, as they are supply/demand anomalies.

During the height of OM production, then as now, many owners spent their money on a more expensive camera body and bought lower price point lenses to put on it. I've met several OM-2S and OM-4 owners who did this, including quite a few of their lenses being made by companies such as Tamron, Tokina and Vivitar.

IMHO:
Buying a high price point body and putting low price point lenses on it is a backward approach; the *lens* is more important. However, a lens manufacturer's name and its speed are not read by others nearly as easily from a distance as the big bold print of the body model. There's a psychological factor with many non-pro camera owners who want the blatantly visible "brag" factor of a high(er) end camera body. It's especially rampant among first-time buyers. This doesn't mean *all* the non-Oly lenses are no good. There are a few legendary designs. This effect does skew lens populations and will affect your numbers.

[Note: this list is *different* and does *not* represent the general non-pro 35mm-SLR-owning population. It's much more discriminating about bodies and lenses with *much* higher experience and technical knowledge about how to make excellent photographs, including a higher percentage of (semi-)pro users. Look at the ADITL and TOPE galleries. Participate in a forum or a photography class loaded with "young newbies." It becomes very evident very quickly.]

-- John


< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz