I've had this lens since around 1982. It has served me well. Far better than
the Soligor and Vivitar zooms that preceeded it in my collection and
self-destructed. I like the lens. Sharpness is comparable to a friends'
Nikkor 80-200/4. Macro is a nice feature (though it's no substitute for a true
macro lens like my 90, so I seldom use it anymore). And I personally prefer
it's one toch zoom/focus to the 2 touch of some of the other zooms. EG when
I'm using my 28-48, I always seem to turn the zoom when I want to focus. With
the 65-200, I'm in much better control. I've never noticed the vignetting
others have seen at f/4, but then I almost never shoot this lens wide open.
I don't know how many/few are out there. I think I saw JH say recently that
it's the only zoom Oly is still servicing. Couple this with the 28-48 and a
fast 50 makes a nice versatile carry round trio.
george
kdunn@xxxxxx wrote:
> Why has there been so little discussion of the 65-200mm Zuiko Zoom on this
> list?
>
> 1. Were so few sold there are very few of us have used them; hence
> no one has an interest?
> 2. The lens is is somehow viewed inferior to the older and bulkier
> 85-250 Zuiko?
>
> I'm interested in list members experience and comments regarding this lens.
> I've found it easier to focus than similar Vivitar lenses. Does it have
> better contrast or resolution than the Vivitar's and Sigma's?
>
> < 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 >
< 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 >
|