Is it good? No, it is sweeeeeet! If you are not into the funky
distortion, then this is the lens for you. I have almost considered
giving up the fisheye because this lens *almost* has the same coverage
as the 16 w/o the strange wrapping on the sides of the frame. If you
got money to spend on just one, then I think it should be the 18/3.5.
gries
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard F. Man
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 8:13 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] 16/3.5 fisheye
How about the 18mm f3.5? Is it good?
At 12:29 PM 7/19/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>I know there was someone out there looking for a fisheye, and with this
>talk of Adorama I looked on the used page to find one for $524.00 not
>bad if it is in good condition.
>
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>
>gries
>
>
>< 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 >
// richard http://www.imagecraft.com
[ For technical support, please include all previous replies in your
msgs. ]
< 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 >
< 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 >
|