Me too, the 180/2.8 is a great lens, resolution is higher than the 200/4.
Also excellent for portrait if you don't mind the long working distance.
C.H.Ling
-----Original Message-----
From: Barry B. Bean <bbbean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, October 15, 1999 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] 200/f4 vs. 180/f2.8
>It's worth noting that I have seen this complaint enough times not to
>dismiss it, but I have never seen this in my own shots.
>
>BBB
>
>On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:57:41 +0200, Paul Van Gossum wrote:
>
>>the 180 is great to work with, but the results are poor: when there is a
high contrast on a photo (eg a bright background) you will see a blue coma
around the edges of the bright part of the picture (eg the mountaintop).
>-
>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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|