In a message dated 99-12-14 22:21:26 EST, you write:
> On the other hand
> the 200/5 has useful apertures too and if you find the cost and weight
> of the lens attractive for using it at these apertures, or you shoot
> images at the wider apertures that don't require center to corner
sharpness,
> then by all means use the lens and enjoy it.
>
> Joseph
I have both the f5 and f4 as well as the Vivitar S1 200/3. The one that gets
used most is the 200/5 not because it's sharper or fuzzier but because I can
carry it around in a fanny pack with the 100, 28, 50 macro, 28, 21 (all 49mm
filters) and 16 and an extra body. My 55mm kit of 200/4, 135/2.8, 100/2,
35-70/3.6, and 24/2 doesn't see the road very often because it feels twice as
heavy. Then there's the 72mm kit, which we won't go into but it's very very
heavy and has its own backpack.
So, I agree with Joseph here. There are probably differences in resolution
between these three 200mm lens and I have shot all three in comparison on a
tripod at the beach. At f8 I really couldn't tell the difference with enough
confidence to say that one was better than the other. If I had to choose, I
thought the VIvitar to be the sharpest of the three but this is in some
contrast to Gary's tests. If ultimate sharpness is what you are after, then
go by Gary's tests, making sure you are using a steady tripod, no wind,
mirror and aperture pre-fire, etc. Otherwise, just use what you have--all
three are fine lens.
Warren
< 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 >
|