----- Original Message -----
From: "Buddy Walters" <BWalters@xxxxxxxxx>
> Hi C.H.,
> I'm not exactly sure what you would call a common problem or if many
> would agree with you on this. I have never seen a bad one, and I always
> check the inside of a lens with a small flash light, even in camera
> shops.
>
May be I always found some bargian so I got bad luck, I have limited
expsoure on Zuikos, just have/had five 35-70/3.6 and got two have element
separation and heard another one has same problem. Under this ration I will
consider this a common problem. Just like the 28/2, I have/had four, all
have front element coating scratches (I knew it before I buy) but I never
seen one 35/2 has similar problem then I will consider coating marks is a
common problem for 28/2.
>
> When introduced in the early 1980's the f3.6 was very expensive and was
> considered to be professional quality. Gary Reese's reviews clearly
> show the f3.6 performance is equal in his testing compared with the new
> $1,200 f2.8 at almost all f stops. I think other members have also
> agreed with Gary's test reports.
> I for one have been shooting the f3.6 since the early 1980's and have
> been so please that I now have 3. I have no intentions in buying a f2.8
> as I just don't think it would be an improvement over the f3.6.
>
I have both lenses, the 2.8 is a great lens, it definately have better
resolution at the long end at F5.6. In my experience, the contrast of 2.8 is
higher, great for landscapes and the 3.6 is lower better for portrait, I
like both lenses.
C.H.Ling
< 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 >
|