"Ack!" The hater of Olympus and 4/3rds joins Dpreview!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Waterproof case for A570IS or Waterproof Camera
Next: Dpreview. Strapped for real news, or in sales pitch mode?
From: David J Taylor on 23 Jan 2010 12:35 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:fdaml5lprrde3t69r8v2n4hefpao378rab(a)4ax.com... [] > Try searching for: > > Olympus 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens > Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens > > Outstanding, top quality glass. But these are not the lightweight lenses I have from Nikon. Let's check the cost, though, for interest: Nikon: 16-85mm VR - GBP 440 70-300mm VR - GBP 492 Olympus: 12-60mm - GBP 843 50-200mm - GBP 1000 As I said, the equivalent lenses are not available from Olympus, and you have to buy heavier and much more expensive lenses. Cheers, David
From: J. Clarke on 23 Jan 2010 14:04 David J Taylor wrote: > "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:fdaml5lprrde3t69r8v2n4hefpao378rab(a)4ax.com... > [] >> Try searching for: >> >> Olympus 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens >> Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens >> >> Outstanding, top quality glass. > > But these are not the lightweight lenses I have from Nikon. Let's > check the cost, though, for interest: > > Nikon: > 16-85mm VR - GBP 440 > 70-300mm VR - GBP 492 > > Olympus: > 12-60mm - GBP 843 > 50-200mm - GBP 1000 > > As I said, the equivalent lenses are not available from Olympus, and > you have to buy heavier and much more expensive lenses. Olympus may be outsmarting themselves. While there's certainly room in the market for an f/2.0 35-100 on 4/3, it seems like a strange place to start out on a system one of whose major benefits is supposed to be its compactness.
From: mith on 23 Jan 2010 17:26 On 2010-01-23 17:35:28 +0000, David J Taylor said: > "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:fdaml5lprrde3t69r8v2n4hefpao378rab(a)4ax.com... > [] >> Try searching for: >> >> Olympus 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens >> Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens >> >> Outstanding, top quality glass. > > But these are not the lightweight lenses I have from Nikon. Let's > check the cost, though, for interest: > > Nikon: > 16-85mm VR - GBP 440 > 70-300mm VR - GBP 492 > > Olympus: > 12-60mm - GBP 843 > 50-200mm - GBP 1000 > > As I said, the equivalent lenses are not available from Olympus, and > you have to buy heavier and much more expensive lenses. > > Cheers, > David You are indeed right about that. On this case to get equivalent lenses i pay more, but there is a catch, as you can see now: Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR - http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-16-85mm-3-5-5-6G-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B0013A1XDE Olympus Zuiko 12-60mm f/2.8-4 ED SWD - http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-12-60mm-2-8-4-0-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000X1N56W Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 ED VR - http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000HJPK2C Olympus Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 ED SWD - http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-50-200mm-2-8-3-5-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000X1P5RE So my question is: if i want a 16-85mm f2.8-4 (or something similar) how much you would pay? same question for the other lense? So, although we are comparing lenses with almost the same focal lenght, the ones from Olympus have larger apertures so i dont think its a fair comparison. Sorry for my bad english.
From: mith on 23 Jan 2010 17:33 On 2010-01-23 17:35:28 +0000, David J Taylor said: > As I said, the equivalent lenses are not available from Olympus, and > you have to buy heavier and much more expensive lenses. When i had read your message i didn't read that phrase properly, but i still think they are worth the difference you pay :)
From: J. Clarke on 23 Jan 2010 19:03
> On 2010-01-23 17:35:28 +0000, David J Taylor said: > >> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:fdaml5lprrde3t69r8v2n4hefpao378rab(a)4ax.com... >> [] >>> Try searching for: >>> >>> Olympus 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens >>> Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens >>> >>> Outstanding, top quality glass. >> >> But these are not the lightweight lenses I have from Nikon. Let's >> check the cost, though, for interest: >> >> Nikon: >> 16-85mm VR - GBP 440 >> 70-300mm VR - GBP 492 >> >> Olympus: >> 12-60mm - GBP 843 >> 50-200mm - GBP 1000 >> >> As I said, the equivalent lenses are not available from Olympus, and >> you have to buy heavier and much more expensive lenses. >> >> Cheers, >> David > > You are indeed right about that. On this case to get equivalent lenses > i pay more, but there is a catch, as you can see now: > > Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR - > http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-16-85mm-3-5-5-6G-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B0013A1XDE > Olympus > > Zuiko 12-60mm f/2.8-4 ED SWD - > http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-12-60mm-2-8-4-0-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000X1N56W > > Nikon > > 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 ED VR - > http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000HJPK2C > Olympus > > Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 ED SWD - > http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-50-200mm-2-8-3-5-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000X1P5RE > > So > > my question is: if i want a 16-85mm f2.8-4 (or something similar) how > much you would pay? same question for the other lense? > > So, although we are comparing lenses with almost the same focal > lenght, the ones from Olympus have larger apertures so i dont think > its a fair comparison. > > Sorry for my bad english. The point you are missing is that the Nikon lenses are physically smaller and less obtrusive. |