Lens defects exist in the 65-200, 8mm fisheye and 50mm f3.5 (?) not sure
about the last one. Defect won't happen to all samples. Individual
elements maybe were bad design or had defective coatings. The 65-200 defect
is the 3rd element from the rear, and only that element. Apparently, it is
not inevitable in every lens.
----------------------------------------------------
John Hermanson www.zuiko.com
mail: omtech@xxxxxxxxx
Camtech, Olympus Sales & Service since 1977
21 South Lane, Huntington NY 11743-4714
631-424-2121 Turnaround 5-7 weeks
----------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Parzival Herzog" <parzp@xxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 10:14 PM
Subject: [OM] Re: Zuiko 35~105/3.5-4.5
>
> On February 17, 2004 19:11, John Hermanson wrote:
> > No, the 35-105 does not have that problem, you may be thinking of the
> > 65-200.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Skip Williams" <om2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Hasn't there been a problem with many of these lenses having defective
or
> > > degrading rear element groups?
> > > If so, examine the lenses closely.
>
> So, what exactly is happening to the 65-200 lens elements? Is it
inevitable
> that this will happen to all these lenses due to some sort of decay
process,
> or are there specific (avoidable) conditions that precipitate this?
>
> It would be ever so comforting to know that only a close encounter with
haggis
> fumes, or cosmic irradiation at high altitude, or storage alongside AF
> equipment, or photographing reptiles in distress while expleting "Crikey,
> lookit'er, isn't she a Beaut!" could initiate this irreversible lens
decline.
>
> --
> Parzival Herzog
>
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|