Several months ago, Joel and I got together for a morning of
moseying around in the prairie with the cameras. I got to
borrow his 180/2.8 for a shot, which I also took with my 200/4
and also the IS-3.
The 180/2.8 was pure joy for focusing. Wide open, this is one
very sharp lens and it would "snap" into focus. The 200/4 kinda
mushes into focus in comparison. Stopped down to F8, the images
were nearly identical. I wouldn't have been able to pick a
"better" image from either lens. At F4 the 180/2.8 won hands
down.
The IS-3 also produced a very sharp image, but the image was
completely different. Bokeh didn't seem natural when compared
to the zuikos. Not necessarily bad, just different.
So therefore, which lens? The 180/2.8 would go in the BIG bag,
but the 200/4 would stay in the small "grab and go" bag. Each
has its place.
For macro work, I prefer the 200/4 because the weight is so much
less that when on 39mm of extension it doesn't wobble quite so
much on the tripod.
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
< 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 >
|