Ingemar,
I own both of the 180s. I used the 180/2.8 extensivly for years. In
fact mine looks pretty well worn. I have never had a complaint about the
contrast and disagree with those test results. I feel the 180/2.8 is a
very fine lens. I still use the 180/2.8 from time to time just for the
size and weight savings over the big 180/2.
The 180/2 is AWESOME. I do try and take it as often as possible. The
images are just outstanding even with the 1.4X teleconverter. Sharpness
and contrast are beyond any of my other Zuikos.
Since I already owned the 180/2.8 it was a hard decision to spend the
money on the faster glass. I am very glad I did. And it has convinced me
that I need to get one of the 250/2s one of these days.
Mark
Ingemar Uvhagen wrote:
>
> gma wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > and compare the results for the 180/2 to those for the 180/2.8.
>
> Good you brought it up George ("gma") as my next question about lenses is:
> Is the 180/2.8 really as bad as the test shows? I mean, VL (very low) in
> contrast
> at corner and not too good at center either... Can the test result be trusted?
> Therefore as usual, if any of you list members have the 180/2.8, tell me (us?)
> what you think of it. In my future plan I had in mind to buy a Zuiko 180/2.8.
> But
> if it is that bad, what is then the point in buying it?
>
> --
> Regards/
> Ingemar Uvhagen
> Gislaved, Sweden
>
< 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 >
|