This topic is in the 2005 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2005Olympus fever has officially hit!
p.3 #1Olympus fever has officially hit!
21mm f2 vs f3.5
Is there a big difference between these 2? I've seen the f2 and it is really a small lens!
Is there a big difference between these 2? I've seen the f2 and it is really a small lens!
Jun 16, 2005 at 07:47 AM
p.3 #2Olympus fever has officially hit!
Guy already implied that the 3.5 was superior to the 2.0, assuming this was in ref. to the 21, of course . "Now one of the reasons i said slow down was just a because a lens of the same version and brand is faster does not mean it is better , so be carefull with that."
Jun 16, 2005 at 07:49 AM
p.3 #3Olympus fever has officially hit!
You sure you're talking about ebay and not our very own b/s forum
Jun 16, 2005 at 08:13 AM
p.3 #4Olympus fever has officially hit!
I don't have an Oly 21/2 for testing. My testing has been focused on the 21/3.5.
As Guy says, the Zeiss is still king, but I think you will all be quite impressed at what the Oly can do.
As Guy says, the Zeiss is still king, but I think you will all be quite impressed at what the Oly can do.
Jun 16, 2005 at 08:15 AM
p.3 #5Olympus fever has officially hit!
glowrider wrote:
Schadenfreude - a most un-politique joy at a colleague’s misfortune.
Arka-
Seems like you lost out on over 2000$...
Please don't think I'm attacking you, but I do feel a need to stand up for those of us who decide to use different lenses. Sure, they can be absurdly expensive, but I don't think people are spending money they can ill-afford to lose to get them. Also, there are plenty of people who have acquired these lenses at not-so-absurd prices. So, to each his own, right?
Also, while tons of people seem to be buying into these things, the people really experiencing the...Show more →
! Your schadenfruede is my selbstbeschädigung (self-induced misfortune or injury; that one hasn't made it into an English dictionary yet). It’s OK though; given the need of people around here to look at any lens that is not made for the Canon EF system as a compelling alternative, I am hoping that new discoveries are made in the realm of Kenko, Albinar, and Vivitar lenses. At that point, I’ll make a killing on some really old stuff we have lying around… In fact, maybe I should start posting some brick walls and test charts! !
You don’t need to stand up for those who choose to use different lenses; it’s their (and your) prerogative, and I wish you all happiness. You already voted with your wallet. I did too, and realized that it wasn’t a satisfying choice for me. I might have been able to re-sell that 21mm for twice as much if I had waited, but when I saw the differences on a 1Ds between it and a good 16-35 stopped down, I could never have guessed that this particular lens would jump up to this price level. You’ve mentioned yourself that some of these lenses (not the 21) don’t justify their exorbitant costs; I believe that $4000 is irrationally excessive for what the 21mm lens offers; heck I thought $1599 was excessive.
The 35-70 and 24-70 comparison is another one I fail to understand. The 24-70 is wider, covers more range, has fast AF or MF, is weather sealed, has electronic aperture, and is faster, yet people still hype the Zeiss. According to many tests done here, the 24-70 also more than holds its own optically against this zoom and comparable Teutonic optics, and offers so much more in the way of usability within the Canon system. Hence, I fail to understand how the Zeiss can even be mentioned in the same breath given its comparatively low versatility, and the compromises in usability it demands as an out-of-system lens.
Apparently, the market for that lens agrees with these assertions, as those zooms are not selling for the prices that they used to.
Arka C.
Schadenfreude - a most un-politique joy at a colleague’s misfortune.
Arka-
Seems like you lost out on over 2000$...
Please don't think I'm attacking you, but I do feel a need to stand up for those of us who decide to use different lenses. Sure, they can be absurdly expensive, but I don't think people are spending money they can ill-afford to lose to get them. Also, there are plenty of people who have acquired these lenses at not-so-absurd prices. So, to each his own, right?
Also, while tons of people seem to be buying into these things, the people really experiencing the...Show more →
! Your schadenfruede is my selbstbeschädigung (self-induced misfortune or injury; that one hasn't made it into an English dictionary yet). It’s OK though; given the need of people around here to look at any lens that is not made for the Canon EF system as a compelling alternative, I am hoping that new discoveries are made in the realm of Kenko, Albinar, and Vivitar lenses. At that point, I’ll make a killing on some really old stuff we have lying around… In fact, maybe I should start posting some brick walls and test charts! !You don’t need to stand up for those who choose to use different lenses; it’s their (and your) prerogative, and I wish you all happiness. You already voted with your wallet. I did too, and realized that it wasn’t a satisfying choice for me. I might have been able to re-sell that 21mm for twice as much if I had waited, but when I saw the differences on a 1Ds between it and a good 16-35 stopped down, I could never have guessed that this particular lens would jump up to this price level. You’ve mentioned yourself that some of these lenses (not the 21) don’t justify their exorbitant costs; I believe that $4000 is irrationally excessive for what the 21mm lens offers; heck I thought $1599 was excessive.
The 35-70 and 24-70 comparison is another one I fail to understand. The 24-70 is wider, covers more range, has fast AF or MF, is weather sealed, has electronic aperture, and is faster, yet people still hype the Zeiss. According to many tests done here, the 24-70 also more than holds its own optically against this zoom and comparable Teutonic optics, and offers so much more in the way of usability within the Canon system. Hence, I fail to understand how the Zeiss can even be mentioned in the same breath given its comparatively low versatility, and the compromises in usability it demands as an out-of-system lens.
Apparently, the market for that lens agrees with these assertions, as those zooms are not selling for the prices that they used to.
Arka C.
Jun 16, 2005 at 11:48 AM
Guest
Offline
Guest
Details
p.3 #6Olympus fever has officially hit!
Interesting chatter from old friends from the Olympus Group of the past.
I was the old member now a Canon man
Your getting famous Mike kicking up the price of Zuiko lenses _poke_
-----------
Good morning Dan,
Thanks for sending the link. Mike Hatam is the guy that appeared on the Olympus mailing list a couple months back wanting to buy 3 or 4 Zuiko 24mm shift lenses. He popped up again recently looking for 21mm Zuikos, I believe he was looking particularly for a 21/3.5 single coated version. It looks like he is one of the Canon users who methodically tests lenses. Most of the posts in that forum topic didn't seem to have real first hand experience. The last comment Mike made about Zuikos on the Oly list was that the Zuikos were better...Show more →
I was the old member now a Canon man
Your getting famous Mike kicking up the price of Zuiko lenses _poke_
-----------
Good morning Dan,
Thanks for sending the link. Mike Hatam is the guy that appeared on the Olympus mailing list a couple months back wanting to buy 3 or 4 Zuiko 24mm shift lenses. He popped up again recently looking for 21mm Zuikos, I believe he was looking particularly for a 21/3.5 single coated version. It looks like he is one of the Canon users who methodically tests lenses. Most of the posts in that forum topic didn't seem to have real first hand experience. The last comment Mike made about Zuikos on the Oly list was that the Zuikos were better...Show more →
Jun 16, 2005 at 12:01 PM
p.3 #8Olympus fever has officially hit!
Arka-
Give and take...The 24-70 is wider, and it's also twice the price. I didn't say they were superior in every way, but for many people, it could be justifiable. Like you said, we speak with our wallets
Give and take...The 24-70 is wider, and it's also twice the price. I didn't say they were superior in every way, but for many people, it could be justifiable. Like you said, we speak with our wallets
Jun 16, 2005 at 01:14 PM
spartan123
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #9Olympus fever has officially hit!
,Wait 2 weeks more and people will be dumping them for what they "should" go for and complaining they are loosing money!
Bob Bell wrote:
you really shouldn't talk about that stuff here, in 2 weeks everything will double and be sold. then were are you going to find those deals?
Jun 16, 2005 at 02:16 PM
p.3 #10Olympus fever has officially hit!
When is the vivitar craze going to come?
Jun 16, 2005 at 02:20 PM
Guest
Offline
Guest
Details
p.3 #11Olympus fever has officially hit!
what they "should" go for
spartan123
What would that be
spartan123
What would that be
Jun 16, 2005 at 02:27 PM
p.3 #12Olympus fever has officially hit!
lordarka wrote:
You don’t need to stand up for those who choose to use different lenses; it’s their (and your) prerogative, and I wish you all happiness. You already voted with your wallet. I did too, and realized that it wasn’t a satisfying choice for me. I might have been able to re-sell that 21mm for twice as much if I had waited, but when I saw the differences on a 1Ds between it and a good 16-35 stopped down, I could never have guessed that this particular lens would jump up to this price level. You’ve mentioned yourself that some of...Show more →
I have different findings between my copy of Zeiss 21 and 16-35, even on 20D they are quite different, I guess may be the high pixel density of 20D sensor shows the difference. Or may be I had a bad copy of 16-35, or you got a bad CZ 21.
The 35-70 and 24-70 comparison is another one I fail to understand. The 24-70 is wider, covers more range, has fast AF or MF, is weather sealed, has electronic aperture, and is faster, yet people still hype the Zeiss. According to many tests done here, the 24-70 also more than holds its own optically against this zoom and comparable Teutonic optics, and offers so much more in the way of usability within the Canon system. Hence, I fail to understand how the Zeiss can even be mentioned in the same breath given its comparatively low versatility, and the compromises in usability...Show more →
Now, I have to agree with you My 24-70 is exceptional good, and I don't even look at 35-70 sales.
You don’t need to stand up for those who choose to use different lenses; it’s their (and your) prerogative, and I wish you all happiness. You already voted with your wallet. I did too, and realized that it wasn’t a satisfying choice for me. I might have been able to re-sell that 21mm for twice as much if I had waited, but when I saw the differences on a 1Ds between it and a good 16-35 stopped down, I could never have guessed that this particular lens would jump up to this price level. You’ve mentioned yourself that some of...Show more →
I have different findings between my copy of Zeiss 21 and 16-35, even on 20D they are quite different, I guess may be the high pixel density of 20D sensor shows the difference. Or may be I had a bad copy of 16-35, or you got a bad CZ 21.
The 35-70 and 24-70 comparison is another one I fail to understand. The 24-70 is wider, covers more range, has fast AF or MF, is weather sealed, has electronic aperture, and is faster, yet people still hype the Zeiss. According to many tests done here, the 24-70 also more than holds its own optically against this zoom and comparable Teutonic optics, and offers so much more in the way of usability within the Canon system. Hence, I fail to understand how the Zeiss can even be mentioned in the same breath given its comparatively low versatility, and the compromises in usability...Show more →
Now, I have to agree with you
My 24-70 is exceptional good, and I don't even look at 35-70 sales.Jun 16, 2005 at 02:28 PM
spartan123
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #13Olympus fever has officially hit!
That is VERY easy to figure... Pull out one of your old KEH used equipment catalogs and turn to the section of the lens you are looking for. Hint, it must be an issue before the FM "hype" started on the currently "hyped" lens.
There you will find the "real" price the lens went for before the FM "hype" started in. Which is what you should pay after all the "hype" is over.
Daniel Danrich wrote:
What would that be
There you will find the "real" price the lens went for before the FM "hype" started in. Which is what you should pay after all the "hype" is over.
Daniel Danrich wrote:
Earlier quote
what they "should" go forEarlier quote
spartan123Jun 16, 2005 at 02:33 PM
p.3 #14Olympus fever has officially hit!
sapro wrote:
Now, I have to agree with you My 24-70 is exceptional good, and I don't even look at 35-70 sales.
You, me both and quite a few others. I am not even looking at the new super duper Leica 28-90mm
Joshua
Edited by AGeoJO on Jun 16, 2005 at 12:36 PM GMT
Now, I have to agree with you
My 24-70 is exceptional good, and I don't even look at 35-70 sales.You, me both and quite a few others. I am not even looking at the new super duper Leica 28-90mm
Joshua
Edited by AGeoJO on Jun 16, 2005 at 12:36 PM GMT
Jun 16, 2005 at 02:35 PM
Guest
Offline
Guest
Details
p.3 #15Olympus fever has officially hit!
Hey Mark from all your 3rd party widest what's the best from your stable
Thanks
Daniel
Thanks
Daniel
Jun 16, 2005 at 02:36 PM
spartan123
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #16Olympus fever has officially hit!
Three I would never get rid of are:
Sigma 15-30
Sigma 24mm
Flektogon 35 f/2.4
I get amazing 13X19 prints from them. Great color / contrast and sharpness (for my needs) Sold MANY of shots from these lenses
I can honestly see Guy and the other people that shoot a LOT of WA for "selling" that would go after the absolute "best" they could get from the third party MF lenses. shooting WA is hell on the corner sharpness.
I don't shoot enough WA to justify doing it. But, I see it as no different then me having a butt load of 200mm, 300mm lenses and a 600L IS. At those ranges I am willing to pay to get the best. For that is where I am happiest at shooting. (with the exception of the 200L f/1.8, refuse to pay the price)
Daniel Danrich wrote:
Hey Mark from all your 3rd party widest what's the best from your stable
Thanks
Daniel
Sigma 15-30
Sigma 24mm
Flektogon 35 f/2.4
I get amazing 13X19 prints from them. Great color / contrast and sharpness (for my needs) Sold MANY of shots from these lenses
I can honestly see Guy and the other people that shoot a LOT of WA for "selling" that would go after the absolute "best" they could get from the third party MF lenses. shooting WA is hell on the corner sharpness.
I don't shoot enough WA to justify doing it. But, I see it as no different then me having a butt load of 200mm, 300mm lenses and a 600L IS. At those ranges I am willing to pay to get the best. For that is where I am happiest at shooting. (with the exception of the 200L f/1.8, refuse to pay the price)
Daniel Danrich wrote:
Hey Mark from all your 3rd party widest what's the best from your stable
Thanks
Daniel
Jun 16, 2005 at 02:47 PM
p.3 #17Olympus fever has officially hit!
spartan123 wrote:
That is VERY easy to figure... Pull out one of your old KEH used equipment catalogs and turn to the section of the lens you are looking for. Hint, it must be an issue before the FM "hype" started on the currently "hyped" lens.
There you will find the "real" price the lens went for before the FM "hype" started in. Which is what you should pay after all the "hype" is over.
I've just done a quick experiment. I pulled out a 15 month old copy of Amateur Photographer, a UK weekly magazine where many retailers list their entire stock of used equipment in adverts each week. The availability and price of CZ lenses seems very similar to that in this week's issue. There were no 21mm Distagons listed then, just like now. There's the odd 18/4 listed, at a very similar price in both magazines, same for the 35-70. So the UK used equipment market doesn't appear to revolve around what happens on FM
That is VERY easy to figure... Pull out one of your old KEH used equipment catalogs and turn to the section of the lens you are looking for. Hint, it must be an issue before the FM "hype" started on the currently "hyped" lens.
There you will find the "real" price the lens went for before the FM "hype" started in. Which is what you should pay after all the "hype" is over.
I've just done a quick experiment. I pulled out a 15 month old copy of Amateur Photographer, a UK weekly magazine where many retailers list their entire stock of used equipment in adverts each week. The availability and price of CZ lenses seems very similar to that in this week's issue. There were no 21mm Distagons listed then, just like now. There's the odd 18/4 listed, at a very similar price in both magazines, same for the 35-70. So the UK used equipment market doesn't appear to revolve around what happens on FM
Jun 16, 2005 at 03:07 PM
spartan123
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #18Olympus fever has officially hit!
Steve,
they have lenses in the UK?
they have lenses in the UK?
Jun 16, 2005 at 03:56 PM
Guest
Offline
Guest
Details
p.3 #19Olympus fever has officially hit!
they have lenses in the UK?
spartan123
I think they have maybe one dentist
Never heard of the Flektogon 35 f/2.4
spartan123
I think they have maybe one dentist
Never heard of the Flektogon 35 f/2.4
Jun 16, 2005 at 03:59 PM
p.3 #20Olympus fever has officially hit!
The Flektogon 35/2.4 is a M42 mount Zeiss-Jena lens that was made in East Germany. It's a fantastic lens and can focus very closely for an almost macro look. I don't know what they go for now, but I bought mine last year for $90. It's and excellent lens. I sold mine and picked up the Canon 35/2 and like it a lot more, though.
Jun 16, 2005 at 05:26 PM