At 23:16 12/13/01, Richard F. Man wrote:
At 03:05 PM 12/13/2001 -0800, you wrote:
I have owned both. I'm on my second 200/4 now (first one got
broken elements). The 200/4 is better to focus with. The F5 is
just a hint too slow.
The 200/4 also makes (with extension tubes) a most wonderful
macro lens. The bokeh is dreamy. However, stopped WAY down, it
gives awesome DOF and sharpness. Size/Weight of the 200/4 is
nearly perfect.
...
Hmm.. can you give me a hint of which extension tubes work with the 200/4?
The 200/5 is a bit slow for the film I normally use (Kodachrome
64). Although I don't use it as often as the 85/2 or 135/2.8, I share the
same observation the 200/4 works nicely for macros using extension tubes,
plus it allows even more standoff for the same magnification. Tripod is a
must, and expect an exceptionally shallow DOF unless it is stopped WAY down.
Because of its focal length, the 7mm OM tube won't shift the minimum focus
distance much. The longer the lens, the more extension that's required
(compare how far the 200mm racks out from infinity to minimum distance
compared to a 50mm lens). The Vivitar AT-21 12/20/36mm set of tubes is
excellent for this lens because the tubes are longer. It's one of the
reasons I kept it after acquiring the 7/14/25 OM set. Although the OM set
can be used with any OM lens, the lengths were optimized to provide
continuous magnification coverage for the 50mm standard lens. If you find
only one tube at a time (the norm with OM tubes) then go for the longer
ones first (14mm and 25mm).
-- John
< 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 >
|