Great job, Kurt. Glad to hear it. That 105/2.5 Nikkor is some nice
glass too. But I figured the 100/2 Zuik could kick it's ___.
George
Kurt Hurley wrote:
>
> Joseph,
>
> Did you compare the 200/4 AIS with the Zuiko 200/4 using a OM body w/
> mirror and aperture prefire, i.e. OM4 or OM2000?
>
> The reason I ask is that using Kodachrome 25 my Zuiko 85/2, 100/2,
> 135/2.8 now equal or outclass my 85/2 AIS, 105/2.5 AIS and 135/2.8 AIS
> Nikkors when tested on an OM4 Ti. That wasn't the case before, when I
> tested my Zuikos on an OM1 with mirror up only.
>
> The Nikkors were tested on an F3 body with mirror and aperture
> prefire. The 135/2.8 AIS Nikkor seems a little sharper using an F2 AS
> body (also mirroa and aperture prefire), which is a somewhat more
> massive body and seems to have a little lower shock in the shutter
> escape mechanism than the F3. Still the Zuiko 135/2.8 outclassed the
> AIS Nikkor 135/2.8 in repeated tests at full aperture and f/8.
>
> I don't own any 200's but I am curious about the data point, since my
> lens tests seem to consistently rate Zuikos as first rate.
>
< 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 >
|