>
> I view the 3Ti and 35-80/2.8 as the extension of the dying OM system. Don't
> know why Olympus created this last two elements when they knew the OM system
> won't last without AF.
>
I can see that. But in a way both of them were logical. The OM-4 was
replaced by the OM-4T/Ti, but the OM-3 had needed the same upgrading. The
35-80 is a bit of a wierd bird, though, as it is an upgrade/replacement to
the 35-70 and 35-105
>
> To me, the best components representing OM system are OM-4, 21/2, 24/2,
> 50/2 and 90/2 macro. They birth during the golden age of the OM system.
> Multi-spot metering with highlight/shadow control was a rather inventive
> idea. All the lenses mentioned above were the first one with largest
> aperture at their relative focal lengths.
>
What about the 50/1.4? ;)
It is really interesting the different perspectives people have of the OM
system. For instance, I am a huge fan of the F2.8 lenses as the bulk of them
are 49mm filter ring sized and very very compact and lightweight. The
diminutive lenses and cameras are what really sets the system apart. But the
F2 lenses are like an entirely different system altogether. Same system, but
different.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|