The 200/4 is a better lens.
I like and use the 200/5 more.
I find it about the same comparison as the 35-70/3.5-4.5 to the 35-70/3.6.
The 3.6 is a better lens, but is bigger and heavier so I use the 3.5-4.5
more. That's what I like about the 200/5. It is so little. It uses 49mm
filters. It's easy to toss into your bag.
All that said, if I was only going to own one, it would be the 200/4. Just
like if I only owned one 135, it would be the 135/2.8, even though I love
the 135/3.5.
Tom
> Both of these are available locally. (for a bit more than skipwilliams's
> averages say they should be costing, but once I add in shipping + duty it
> seems more reasonable) and I'm tempted by a decent prime at that length.
>
> Do people have preferences for one over the other? Checking on e-sif,
> unsurprisingly the tradeoff is between weight/size and rather less than a
> stop (I think) of speed -- if anyone has both, which do you find you use
> more? Gary Reese's tests suggest that the f4 performs noticeably better
than
> the f5, interestingly.
>
> thanks,
>
> -- dan
< 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 >
|