>Are we reading the same data? The 200/5 mounted on the OM-2000 with
>aperture and mirror pre-fire and proper support is an A-/B+ lens!
Umm, Gary's data shows the single-coated 200/5 only achieving that
rating at f/16. At wider apertures it is significantly worse. And Gary's
data also says that the single-coated one had "moderately low contrast".
A lens with moderately low contrast and mediocre image quality until
it is at least 2 stops closed down from (a slow, f/5) wide-open aperture
is what I would call a fairly mediocre lens (based on Gary's data).
seeing the sharpest aperture of a lens for 35mm at f/16 is usually a
clue that it isn't a well corrected lens since it is depending on
As I mentioned, I owned the multicoated one and it was contrasty enough
but soft until well stopped down.
>>Runners up were the 200/4 Zuiko
>Which is also an A-/B+ lens.
the 200/4 is better than both the single and multicoated 200/5's
at wider apertures, according to Gary's data, and is a contrasty lens.
most lenses are sharp enough at f/16. top notch color and contrast, and being
well corrected at wider apertures is what makes a lens pro quality.
which data were you looking at?
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 >
|