In <5117e4da.35ea9d94@xxxxxxx>>, on 08/31/98 at 08:56 AM,
MorrisMini@xxxxxxx said:
>I see that the f/5 is smaller, lighter, and takes 49mm filters, but
>what about the resolution and general performance?
I can only repeat the rhapsodic evaluation I gave some time ago on this
list -- the 200 mm f/5.0 is a wonderful lens. The images one can make
with it are very crisp, with a very appealing three-dimensional quality
to them.
>Anyone tried both?
Unhappily, I haven't. Hence I am merely a biassed observer of one of
them.
>Er, anyone have a really nice f/5 for sale?!
If you can wait until I depart this world, and you are strong enough to
pry it from my cold, frozen fingers, then... [grin].
les clark
-----------------------------------------------------------
lclark@xxxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------------------------
< 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 >
|