Has anyone else noticed how simmilar the performance of a
300/4.5 with a 1.4X TC (420/6.3) is to a 400/6.3 ? Makes me wonder if
Olympus didn't just take a 300/4.5 and build a 1.4 into it ;-)
Only kidding.
The 400/6.3 does have better performance at the wider apertures.
The price comparison is interesting also - about $660 for the 300/4.5 +
1.4 combo and $1100 for the 400/6.3 (Thanks Skip)
The Tamron 400/4 SP trounces both of these alternatives, and that is when
tested with the OM1, I wonder how it would fare if tested with an OM4/2000
with mirror and aperture pre-fire.
400mm f/6.3 Zuiko (multi-coated)
OM-2000 with mirror and diaphram prefire
Vignetting = none
Distortion = Slight pincushion
Aperture Center Corner
f/6.3 C+ C+
f/8 B B-
f/11 B+ B-
f/16 B+ B
f/22 B+ B
f/32 B+ B+
Notes: Moderately high contrast images.
OM-4T with mirror and aperture prefire
Aperture Center Corner
f/4.5 (6.3) C- C-
f/5.6 (8) C+ C+
f/8 (11) B- B-
f/11 (16) B B-
f/16 (22) A- B+
f/22 (32) B+ B
f/32 (45) B B-
Notes: Different lens than above test. Moderately low
contrast at f/4.5 (f/6.3 effective); moderate contrast
at f/5.6, 8, and 32; high contrast at f/11 to 22.
Thanks to Gary, as ever, for the test results.
Giles
Mike Butler wrote:
> I know this is bordering on taboo, but I was wishfully watching the
> recent auction of a Zuiko 400mm F6.3 and was rather surprised that its
> ending price of $1,075.99 did not reach the reserve. I don't want to
> offend the auctioneer if he/she is a list member, but after looking at
> Skip's eBay history I expected this to be well above any reserve. Does
> anyone remember the condition of the single example shown in Skip's
> site?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike ("Kilo Buck" lenses are only a dream) Butler
> Dublin, California
>
< 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 >
|