I currently own a 200/5 and a 180/2.8, and owned a 200/4 until
recently. All are excellent lenses, but you need to choose horses for
courses. I find the results from all three lenses very comparable,
and ultimately choose the lens I want by handling characteristics -
obviously the 180 has the edge for speed and is easiest to work with
in low light conditions. But it is a huge, heavy lens (by Zuiko
standards), and requires 72mm filters. The 200/5, on the other hand
is remarkably small and light and uses 49mm filters (compatible with
so much of your other Zuiko glass). The 200/4 is slightly brighter
than the 200/5, but is noticeably larger, and requires 55mm filters
(handy if you have many Zuiko X/2 lenses 135/2.8, or one of the zooms
that take a 55mm filter).
If I had to choose one lens in this focal length for all around
shooting, it would be the 200/5. I'm so glad I don't have to do that.
If your choice is between the 200/4 and the 180/2.8, I'd opt for the
200/4 unless I shot a lot in low light situations, or had some other
specific need for the wide aperture.
BBB
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:30:40 +0200, Leopoldo Sánchez Rodríguez wrote:
>Hi you Zuiko's owner!
>
>I'd like to bring up another topic here, hoping that it won't be and old
>subject fully discussed when I wasn't here.
>How does the 200/f4 stand a comparison with the 180/f2.8 in terms of overall
>performance?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Leopoldo
>
>
>< 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 >
>
>
-
B.B. Bean - Have horn, will travel
bbbean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peach Orchard, MO
http://www.beancotton.com/bbbean.shtml
< 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 >
|