I'm one of the ones who has kept the 200/4 for one of the reasons Skip
mentioned: the brighter viewfinder. I also use slower films and run the
200/4 wide open at times. I think these will be your two biggest
limitations with the 200/5. Yes, it's mostly a trade-off of speed for size
and weight. Even so, the 200/4 is not unmanageable hand held provided
you're doing it for a few hours (half day) or less. An entire day might be
a different story. The 55mm ring also matches many of my other lenses, so
that's not as much an issue for me as it might be with others.
-- John
At 01:26 6/9/01, Tom Scales wrote:
I second Skip's thoughts. Fantastic little lens -- and I mean little. We
had a thread a few months back about how many of us had sold our 200/4 and
kept our 200/5, mostly for size. I was surprised how many did the same thing
I did.
Tom
> I have a 200/5 and I really like it. It needs a bright focusing screen
> though. I'd recommend a Beattie, 2-4, 1-4, 1-10, or 1-8. Otherwise it's
> pretty dim at F/5.
>
> The size is remarkably small too. Similar to many other 135's.
>
> I often use it just for the purpose you describe, for my kid's games.
>
> The sharpness and image quality is fine, especially for a <$100 lens. It
> is a no-lose decision to at least have one for a while. Sell it if you
> don't like it.
>
> Skip
< 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 >
|