At 12:28 PM 1/7/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>I'm "testing" a Zuiko 200/4 lens that was in my favorite used-camera
>store. It's in good (not great... just good) shape.... glass looks perfect,
>no dust inside, some wear on the outside, focus is smooth but
>aperature feels a bit "worn", S/N is 107467 and it exhibits a magenta
>and yellow relfection so I *think* it's multicoated (???). Comes with
>original caps but no case.
>
>Their "asking" price is CDN$175.00 (US$117.00) but I can get it for
>CDN$125.00 (US$84.00) if I really want it.
>
>My questions....
>
>1. Anyone shoot with this beastie wanna comment on the quality of its
>output? How's the contrast, bokah, etc.?
Yes, I own one, and have at least one example of work with it posted on the
Web. Go here:
http://www.enable.org/~gallery/subpages/wood/karen01a.jpg
This was a hand-held shot, bright sunlight, ASA 100 slide film (Velvia, if
memory serves). Other tech info is here:
http://www.enable.org/~gallery/subpages/wood/karen01.html
>2. Any comments on those prices?
Both prices are good, as long as the glass and coatings are flawless.
>3. For telephoto shots, I currently use a 75-150/4. If I need a longer
>focal length, I add a Kiron 7-element 2X teleconverter. Do I really *need*
>the 200/4 lens, and if so why? (Yeah, like *that* has anything to do
>with it!)
No, you don't need it. But it's a good hand-held telephoto, and I *really*
like it for portrait work -- it's my second-favourite lens for portraiture
after the 100/2.0. It's also a lot brighter than the 2X/zoom combo.
Garth
"A bad day doing photography is better
than a good day doing just about
anything else."
The Unofficial Olympus Web Photo Gallery at:
http://www.taiga.ca/~gallery/, or
http://www.enable.org/~gallery/
< 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 >
|
