The 35-105, another Zuiko I've never seen let alone used. But it's only
one of many.
Chuck Norcutt
On 4/20/2013 6:40 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
> IN the days (2000 - 2002) when Gary Reese's tests were all the rage, he
> remarked to me that the once-vaunted Zuiko 35 - 70 f/3.6 delivered images
> in practice indistinguishable from those of the 35 - 80 f/2.8, even though his
> lens tests showed the latter to be more distinguished.
>
> I have one of the f/3.6 lenses but haven't used it all that much, mainly
> because the Zuiko 35 - 105 with limited macro ability has been so versatile
> in enabling me to compose with just one lens a very wide range of subjects.
> It is one of the few Zuiko lenses I have bought from new - in this case about
> $585 NZ some time in the mid 1980's. After the huge amount of work I gave
> the 50mm f/1.4 that came new with my first OM (an OM10, which I still
> have), and me being scarcely conscious of other Zuiko lenses, I was told
> about the 35 - 105 about the time I bought my OM2. I never regretted
> buying it. It transformed my photography to a newer high.
>
> Brian Swale
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|