Joseph,
Thanks for zoom lens comparison. Not being a zoom lens user my self, I can
understand the choice of the Vivitar Series 1 70--210mm f/3.5. I took a few
shots with this lens using a friends Canon EF body on a backpacking trip
several years ago. I Was particularly impressed with the quality and
hand-holdability of the lens in close focus mode. The Vivitar Series 1
90/2.5 is also nice from that series. At its time of introduction in the
late 70's the 90/2.5 of the sharpest 35mm SLR lenses.
At 08:34 PM 12/9/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>I just looked at Gary Reese's evaluation of the 200/5 Zuiko, both
>single-coated and multicoated. I used to own a multicoated one and I
>concur with Gary's data that this is not a good lens, as I suggested
>previously. His data also describes the single-coated version as having
>moderately low contrast. Although I haven't owned this (SC) version, if this
>is correct, then I'd consider it to be a mediocre lens as well.
>
>I have owned the following lenses available for OM mount that reach 200mm,
>along with a couple zooms that only reach 150mm:
>
>Olympus: 200/4 (MC, 2 samples), 200/5 (MC, 1 sample), 100-200/5 (MC, 1
sample),
> 65-200/4 (MC, 1 sample), 75-150/4 (SC, 1 sample)
>
>Tamron: 200/3.5 (1 sample), 70-210/3.5-4 (1 sample)
>
>Vivitar: 70-210/3.5 Series 1 (MC, 67mm filter threads, 1 sample),
> 70-210/3.5 Series 1 (MC, 62mm filter threads, 1 sample),
> 70-150/3.8 (MC, close-focus version, 1 sample)
> 200/3 Series 1 (1 sample).
>
>Some were mediocre in quality, some were too heavy or difficult to handle
for
>consistently sharp pix (on or off tripod), but I was generally never fully
>satisfied with many of them. The ones I kept and liked the best are:
>
>Vivitar: 70-210/3.5 Series 1 (62mm filter threads)
> 70-150/3.8
>
>Runners up were the 200/4 Zuiko and 65-200/4 Zuiko, and Vivitar 200/3. All
>of these are fine lenses, but I preferred the vivitar 70-210 for the
following
>reasons:
>
>1. the 200/4 isn't enough sharper at 200mm or lighter weight than the
> 70-210/3.5 (62mm filters) to give up the convenience of a zoom. It takes
> a careful look to see the difference between these two lenses shot at
> 200mm and f/4. I'd give the edge to the 200/4 for corner sharpness and
> contrast, but they are pretty close. the 200/4 is more flare-resistant
> also. I was satisfied with the 200/4, but the 70-210/3.5 vivitar
> (62mm filters) is much lighter and more compact than a 200/4 plus 135/2.8
> that it replaced (and less expensive to boot).
>
>2. the 65-200/4 is a fine lens, but the focal length adjustment cylinder is
> fully extended to focus at 200mm, making the lens a bit front heavy to
> the point that I felt this lens would be well served by having a tripod
> mount. the vivitar 70-210 has the same cylinder retracted close to the
> camera at 210mm, so at the higher magnifications (200mm) where vibrations
> are more of a problem, the center of gravity is closer to the camera.
> This is a small thing, but it makes the lens handle much more comfortably
> on a tripod. Also the Vivitar lens supports close focus at all focal
> lengths in the zoom range, instead of just at 65mm like the Zuiko zoom.
> I use the Vivitar zoom for closeups (sometimes with a Nikon 5T closeup
> lens on the front) set at 210mm when I need working distance for a
> closeup shot. The 65-200/4 Zuiko is clearly inferior for this type of
> shot as a result.
>
>3. the Vivitar 200/3 is a bit heavy for a prime lens. the extra speed is
> nice, but I didn't feel I needed it for the work I do. I might use it for
> flower portraits for a stronger separation of flower from background than
> is possible shooting at 210/3.5, but I usually do these types of shots at
> 210/4 anyway.
>
>4. The Tamron lenses above were acceptable, but nothing special.
>
>Some other comments: I found the image quality of the 200/5, 100-200/5, and
>75-150/4 Zuikos to be unacceptable. The Vivitar 70-150/3.8 is a real sleeper
>in that it is surprisingly quite good, better than any of these compact
lenses
>certainly, and quite inexpensive on the used market. It makes a great
>portrait lens also. It is only slightly larger than a 135/2.8 Zuiko.
>
>Well, such were my experiences. I hope the content was useful enough to
>justify the amount of text, but maybe it wasn't.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Joseph
>
>
>< 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 >
>
Kurt Hurley IDS 2000 Product Marketing Manager
Schlumberger T&T - Diagnostic Systems
1601 Technology Drive San Jose CA 95110
email khurley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PH 408-437-5156 FAX 408-437-9031 PG 408-699-4587
< 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 >
|