Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Zuiko 35~105/3.5-4.5

Subject: [OM] Re: Zuiko 35~105/3.5-4.5
From: "Gordon J. Ross" <gordross@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:38:13 -0700
Hi John:

I had a 65-200 and it was fine, but there are problem ones, ask very
specifically if found on on eb*y. I would highly recommend to most to get an
85 (or 100) and a 200 instead of the zoom. I found that most of the time i
used the zoom at 200 and its heavier, and at the lesser telephoto ranges its
too slow. Just a thought.

Gord
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Hermanson" <omtech@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 6:59 AM
Subject: [OM] Re: Zuiko 35~105/3.5-4.5


>
> 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"


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"

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz