Wow,
Thanks for sharing. I would assure you that you would NOT be
disappointed with Big Foot. I haven't seen one come up on
yabe in over 6 months in OM mount. Nik mount ones seem to go for crazy
money and EF for 1400.
This 75 is an oddball FL but sort of cool. (see review but review on
FF is tough to find.
I have been searching in vain for Big Foot's longer brother the 180 f4
which is APO and a super companion to the Z. 50-250 for travel and
Longer FL macro. I really, really, really want one. The 90 is sort of
a nice lens with the classic SL series bokeh.
A Smitten Mike
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/265-voigtlander-sl-70mm-f25-color-heliar-cy-to-canon-review--test-report
Hi Guys, *bay item 370277511366, awl de vay from Russia.
Now the question is, apart from the beautiful physical design of the
Voigtlander lenses, why would an OM user choose this expensive (but
lower-specced)
lens over, say, a 80/2.0 which also uses a 49mm filter (i.e. similar
compactness).
Anyway, I would find the 40/2.0 or the bigfoot (125/2.5 APO Macro)
more interesting
if I were ever personally to lay eyes on an OM-mount example, but I
thought I'd share
this little discovery with the group.
Cheers.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|