The two I have, one I bought new in the 90's has the later pattern rubber.............erm diagonally ribbed?! and an earlier one but don't know the date........... 80's? other than the rubber focussing ring I've never detected any real differences. Maybe worth closer examination though.
John ---------- Original Message ----------- From: Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:37:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Was KA mount Carl Zeiss Jena lenses, now Leica lenses from Japan > --- John Whittingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The early Sigmas were metal, very well constructed the only really fault > > being the markings tended to wear off the barrel. > > The Sigma 24 I bought in mid-90's had full metal body too, with > plastic aperture ring. But what made their lenses substandrd was not > about plastic or metal, but the mechanical designs. For PKA mount > design, the aperture mechanism was poorly design and lacked > precision. There are also other minor problems like easy to wear > materials (coating, rubber, aperture ring etc). But they might have > improved since? I don't know. > > ===== > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? > http://my.yahoo.com ------- End of Original Message -------
