On the production changes: Some products have a fairly long life, and SLR
bodies and lenses were that way for many years. When a company makes
changes, there are usually two reasons. First, problems relating to quality
and durability may mainfest themselves early in the product life. The
quality of a lens, thus, improves in the first part of its life. Think of
this as a line on a graph that starts with s/n 0, and goes up toward the
middle. Then, like a thief in the night, the black art of value engineering
comes. Over the first few years of the product life, ways are discovered to
cheapen the manufacturing process, without so great a loss in quality as to
affect sales. Think of this as a line that starts near the middle, and goes
down to end at s/n ultimate. The best lens, then, would be somewhere in the
middle where overall quality is highest, although optical quality may be
better toward the end (50/1.8), as the gain optically may be comprimised by
the cheapening of the manufacturing (not the 50/1.8). Just a particularly
cynical theory.
With zooms, the internal mechanism may preclude an aperture ring at the
front of the lens. This would make the 90/2 all the more unusual. I, too,
suspect a new generation of designers, all taking aim at the master.
Bill Pearce
< 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 >
|