A little bit late, hopefully not to late.
Doug Cooper wrote:
> I'm wondering what the consensus is regarding this lens, or whether there
> even is one. The tests seem all over the map. Some seem to think it's a
> great lens, even hand-held;
IMHO the 200mm/4.0 Zuiko is a good lens, it rendered pictures with good
contrast, showing fine details.
I personaly have problems handholding lenses longer than 135mm, it needs
concentration
and short exposure times not to ruin the photo.
A solid fixture of lens and camera helps to achieve best results.
> And what about the 2xA converter? Someone in the archives suggested you
> could *hand-hold* it with the converter attached!
I was that bold.
No, I don´t recomend it for best image quality, but with bright sunshine
and short exposure times it´s possible.
The reason I did it was, I was so dissapointed with the results of this
combo fixed to an tripod (... and I used an OM-4 with aperture/mirror
prefire!). In fact the results handholding were better than the one from
the tripod (might be a problem of the tripod head too).
The whole structure of an OM, 2x converter and 200mm Zuiko (very big
lever, small contact with tripod head) is so instable, the very small
vibrations induced by the shutter might ruin the photo.
For best results, I suggest to use a bean bag with the 200mm/4.0. The
bag will eliminate vibrations and support the lens barrel.
> That would be
> something: a 400mm lens that didn't require a tripod...
Not this lens, a normal tripod is just worse than handholding. Such
"wonder-teles" exist, at a price.
Regards
Richard
< 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 >
|