Off - branded lenses are cheaper full stop. Zuikos are priced in the correct
part of the spectrum of branded lenses with regard to quality. Thus part of
the differential is pure brand premium.
The main gain you get from sticking with Zuikos is consistency of mechanical
and optical features, for example the standardised filter sizes and
direction of focus. Placement of the aperture ring (*!"%$ 90 mm excepted).
Then you get to the generally small and light design ethos of Olympus, which
is worth some premium in avoiding Chiropractic fees!
And finally you get pride of ownership and other intangibles.
Personally, I use Zuikos, and keep the few off - brand lenses I have for
risk situations. In most cases this is irrational, since the performance of
lens brands like T*mr*n is perfectly good.
And on balance, if you want to us an off - brand lens, why stick with an
increasingly hard - to - maintain camera body system which is now a
development backwater.
Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Ferguson" <mikeferguson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 12:49 AM
Subject: [OM] It ain't a Zuiko...
> As I'm doing one of those stream of consciousness things to the list right
> now, I'll seek any views there might be on my two non-Zuiko OM lenses...
>
> First, a question...I've noticed that non-Zuiko lenses are much much
cheaper
> than the real thing. And yet seem to offer features that the Zuikos
don't,
> at anything near the same price anyway, like macro, for instance. So what
> are we paying for - the name, or is there really that much of a quality
gap
> between Zuiko and the others?
>
> I know that I've seen debates about the colour definition and resolution
of
> lenses on this list, but I guess I'm not there yet - for me the image is
> all, and if it's strong enough the odd artefact or a lack of clarity isn't
> going to be a major detraction (maybe there's another thread you guys have
> done right there...)
>
> So, my lenses:
>
> A Super-Paragon PMC II Auto Zoom 28-70 f3.8, with 1:5 macro and a minimum
> focus of 0.42m (see my point about how this compares to my Zuiko 35-70
f4?).
> Cost me buttons about ten years ago and has taken many of my favourite
> pics...
>
> A Carl Zeiss Jena (and I saw the thread about how this isn't a 'real'
Zeiss,
> as I understood it) Jenazoom 70-210 f4.5, with 1:4 macro and a minimum
focus
> of 1.1m. And, again, it makes the specs of my Zuiko 75-150 f4 look pretty
> shoddy, but cost much less. I'll admit it suffers from terrible zoom
droop
> (it REALLY needs to be carried level, or else it extends itself...).
>
> So, any opinions on the above, plus what am I missing about Zuikos in
> comparison to their rivals?
>
> Thanks once again
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> < 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 >
|