I suspect a couple things:
1) They were computer designed, unlike earlier Zuikos
2) They were contracted out for manufacture.
Not sure, just guessing.
Tom
From: "Skip Williams" <om@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> If you haven't picked up one, you'll have to see for yourself. I loand my
90/2 to a long-time list member and the first thing that he said was how
weird the lens was and un-Zuiko-like it was. This without any prodding or
pre-exposure comments from me.
>
> The 90/2 macro is a different lens than all the earlier Zuiko's, IMO.
It's got a real big focusing barrel like the 50/2 and 100/2. The aperture
ring is at the back of the lens, unlke most others, and all the ones that
I've handled have a "clacking" sound to the aperture movement click-stops,
unlike most of the other lenses (but not all). The only hood is the huge
rubber clamp-on that also fits the 135/4.5, which is unlike all the others.
>
> And the lens just feels different in it's focusing and handling. It's not
the svelte Zuikos like most of the other lenses in the line. All this said,
it has a three-dimensional quality to the images that is very difficult to
convey in web images or words. (This is much the same mushy description
that you hear from Zeiss and Leica pundits, so take it as you will.)
>
> I wonder if the later, super lenses like the 90/2, 50/2, 100/2, and
35-80/2.8 were designed by a different generation of optical engineers.
They're all different in philosophy than most other Zuikos. I also wonder
if those lenses were build using different manufacturing techniques?
>
> Skip
< 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 >
|