-----Original Message-----
From: frieder.faig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<frieder.faig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>O.K. the color balance may be different. But Minolta isn`t a thirt
party-manufacturer
>so I won`t expect much significant differences to Olympus.
>(Exeptions evaluate the rule).
>
Yes, I agree and Minolta MC/MD's taste is very similar to OM as heard from
the others. But this is not the case with Nikon and Canon, which could be
very different.
>>
>> On the other hand it is easy to distinguish the Tamron 17 and Zuiko 18,
>> Zuiko clearly won the edge resolution.
>
>Yeah, but the Zuiko 3.5/18 is one of the real jewels in the OM lens line.
>- too sad, it`s too expensive for me.
>>
>Frieder Faig
I have never think of purchasing the Zuiko 18/3.5 before I got it from a big
outfit, also because of the price and I learned that the falloff is very
serious. The whole set of OM equipment was owned by a professional
photographer. They were at a very good price, after I sold out half of the
kit, the 18/3.5's value is around $200 only. But after performed some test
shots, I found that the lens has excellent resolution from close focus to
infinity, color was also among the best of the Zuikos. Its drawback are
light falloff and easily subject to ghost image.
I knew one OM fan, he join the OM System just because he got a 4Ti and a
18/3.5 from a retired photography. He was very impressed with the lens, then
he sold all his EOS and started to search the Zuikos. Now, except the long
and heavy one, he got lots of "top of the line" Zuikos, including the 24
shift and even a 3Ti.
C.H.Ling
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|