On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 04:54:30 -0800 (PST), Joseph wrote:
>>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.
Take another look:
200mm f/5 Zuiko (single-coated)
OM-2000 with mirror and aperture prefire and Bogen Telephoto Lens
Support
Vignetting = A
Distortion = slight pincushion
Aperture Center Corner
f/5 B- B-
f/8 B B-
f/11 B+ B
f/16 A- B+
f/22 B+ B
f/32 B B-
>>>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,
Given Gary's caveat: "differences are significant across fullletter
grades only", my own lens tests (see the archives for discussion -
subsequent analysis of negatives and transparencies supported my
original conclusion from prints), and the reports of other list
members, I still consider the 200/4 and 200/5 virtually
interchangeable with only a minor tradeoff between speed and size. As
noted elsewhere, when speed is a critical issue the 180/2.8 is the
lens of choice.
>which data were you looking at?
The following:
200mm f/4 Zuiko (multi-coated)
Vignetting = A
Distortion = None
All tests shot with the same lens, in 9+ condition. These multiple
tests were
done to determine the effects of vibration from shutter travel and
the auto
diaphram mechanism..
OM-2000 with mirror and auto diaphram prefire, lens supported by a
BogenTelephoto Lens Support.
Aperture Center Corner
f/4 B B-
f/5.6 B+ B
f/8 A- B
f/11 A- B+
f/16 B+ B+
f/22 B+ B+
f/32 B B-
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 >
|