On Thu, 9 Dec 1999 02:15:54 -0800 (PST), Joseph wrote:
>responding to several comments from various people:
>
>>Well, I already have the 200/4 (it's part of my 55mm set!). The 100-200 seems
>>more abundant on the used market than the 200/5 though.
>
>neither the 100-200/5 nor the 200/5 can match the 200/4 in image quality
>(I've owned all three lenses in the past), and the 200/4 is pretty good,
>but no match for the 200/4 AIS-Nikkor.
I disagree. Both Gary's lens tests and my experience show the 200/4
and 200/5 to be comparable performers. In fact, the single coated
200/5 perfomed as well as the multi-coated 200/4 when used with
mirror and aperture pre-fire and proper support.
>If you're looking for a lightweight telephoto solution, presumably you
>aren't carrying a tripod. in this case, do you really expect to shoot
>at 200mm handheld (ie at 1/250 shutter speed)?
All the time in my case. I regularly shoot sports, festivals, and
concerts hand held with a 200, and sometimes a 300. While a tripod or
monopod is preferable, it isn';t walways feasible. Attend any press
function where there is some distance between the subject and the
press and try to find many photographers shooting less than 200.
Shooting telephoto sans tripod is simply a matter of necessity.
> I don't think using a filter on a $75-100 lens is cost
>effective either.
No? You'd rather replace a $100 lens than a $20 filter? I don't
understand your logic.
BBB
-
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 >
|