Given that GBP40 - 50 is the going rate for a good to mint 3.5 Zuikos and there
seem to be plenty about, there can't be much mileage in looking for
alternatives? Wish I could find an MC one, though.
The 3.5 Zuiko must count as one of the greatest secondhand bargains, given its
standard of construction and performance. 2.8s seem to be "unjustifiably" more
expensive on average, given the marginal benefits. Of course this is because of
supply in the second - hand chain, and they are much rarer, but a 3.5 will not
disappoint.
Julian
> from: Roger Wesson <roger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 11:09:16
> to: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> subject: Re: [OM] Those other 135mm lenses
>
> I had a Soligor 135/2.8, which I got fairly cheaply. It had loads of
> muck on the rear element but once I'd cleaned it up it was not an
> unacceptable performer. However, it fell apart after a few months use
> and the Zuiko 135/3.5 I bought to replace it is a far, far superior
> lens, and much better value for money - I paid 10 pounds for the Soligor
> and 40 pounds for the Zuiko.
>
> ROger
>
> plp@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Gary's tests don't include lots of non-Olympus telephoto
> > lenses (heck, he couldn't test everything). So, does a
> > general consensus exist on non-Olympus 135mm lenses?
> > What about the Sigma, Hoya, Vivitar, JC Penney, etc? Any
> > others worth mentioning?
> >
> >
> > Pete
> >
>
>
>
> < 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 >
>
< 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 >
|