Skip,
I own both lenses. Over years I have formed opinions about when and where
each lens is best suited. I use the 85-250 when I'm going to be shooting
primarily landscapes. The built in tripod collar makes using the lens
convenient for both verticals and horizontals and the lens is very stable
when mounted on the tripod. I prefer seperate zoom and focus rings when I'm
working landscape images. As far as sharpness and contrast are concerned, the
85-250 has always delivered great images. Pro photographer Chuck Place used
the lens extensively in his book "Ancient Images" if you would like to see
examples of this lens' capability in print. (Unfortunately, our man Chuck has
now moved on to Canon. However, his best work was with Oly, IMO)
The 65-200 is more compact and is carried when size is important. I've found
no difference in sharpness between the two lenses. However, there is
something different about images taken with these lenses. It's hard to
describe, but is consistently visible when I've made direct comparisons. If
your interested, Mod. Photo. tested the 85-250 (and 35-70 F4.0 and the 21
F2.0) in 1980.
Gary Faulkenberry
< 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 >
|