Not necessarily. It depends on what you're looking for. I own both lenses
and actually use the f/5 a lot more. It is smaller and lighter and uses
49mm filters. The f/4 is a little bigger and takes 55mm filters. Since I
use the 200 outdoors in, usually, bright circumstances, the trade-off is
fine for me. The results, to my eye, are equal.
I have the same feelings about the 21/2 and 21/3.5. I love both lenses for
different reasons. The 21/2 results just jump out of the print. The 21/3.5
is very close in results, but is also so much smaller and lighter. In this
case, I use the 21/2 more, because this is my favorite focal length.
Tough call. Honestly, go with whichever one you see first, that's in good
shape and cheap.
Tom
From: "Kierstin" <2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> but don't I want to stay away from such high 'F' numbers?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary Edwards" <garyetx@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 3:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [OM] 300mm cost (now)
>
>
> > Kierstin, I'd suggest tha tyou try a 200 first. Zuiko 200 f/4 or f/5s
> are
> > quite reasonable and lots easier to get good results. And sunsets can
be
> > photographed with any focal length - depends on how you see the image in
> > your mind, once you look at the reality.
> >
> > Gary Edwards
< 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 >
|