Hi,
> I'm sure because of their manufacture date that they were probably
> discontinued before multi coating.
Actually, according to the OM System Lens handbook they did make MC versions
of this lens too. It looks like it was still in production then at least
until 1985.
> Maybe it's contrast is a little weak for copy work or detailed color
> product work, but it's perfect for quality portrait work.
I've always wondered about the reported weak contrast of this lens. I myself
have the 65-200/4 which is a lovely lens and does seem to have fine contrast
(as well as high resolution and sharpness).
> Also a mediocre make up job is not to too evident because of the very
> moderate contrast.
In a twisted way I guess that's an advantage then ;)
> A perfect studio portrait lens. I don't know why so many have dissed this
> lens.
Hmmm, I can think of a few things which theoretically spoken can have caused
people to do this:
-It's an F4 lens. This is of course rather slow when compared against some
of the available primes that lie in the focal length range, like the 85/2,
the 100/2, the 100/2.8 and the 135/2.8.
-Maybe some people preferred the (reportedly) superior 65-200/4, because of
its one-touch design, and probably better contrast.
> What do others think of this?
For a while I have considered trying to find one as a lighter alternative
for the 65-200/4 (when I want to travel as lightly as possible), but I
decided there would not be enough gain in doing so to warrant buying it
(nonetheless I _AM_ a Zuikoholic ;)))) ).
I think the weight is definitely a good reason for considering it. The speed
is not all that great with its F4, but then again, the same goes for the
65-200/4 (which I consequently normally don't use for portraits, because I
like the 100/2 and the 135/2.8 better for that). Another BIG advantage of
this lens is the price. Especially when expressed in terms of a
cost-performance ratio.
Having said all this, I have never worked with this particular lens, but I'm
sure it must be nice to work with. It's a Zuiko, and there's no sucj thing
as a bad Zuiko! :)
Cheers!
Olafo
< 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 >
|