What's your experience with the 200/4? Are you happy with your pictures?
You haven't said and I'm curious. I used it a little but never really
needed the reach much. When I did use it, I never came back with a superbly
sharp picture like I always do with the 100/2.8. Of course if you need a
200, the 100 isn't gonna be a substitute.
I don't have the budget for the big 180s, and don't want to save up a long
time for a focal length I rarely use. In addition, I suspect that the
180/2.8 would also come up lacking as it only has 5 elements (like the
200/4). My prejudice is that 5 elements isn't enough to make a sharp lens
of any focal length. I could be wrong. I'm not schooled as an optical
designer but I feel like I've gathered some expensive opinion.
That's me. What's _your_ two cents?
Lamadoo
Don't know where you got the 5 element minimum idea. The sharpness
of 4 element Tessar and Elmar lenses is legend. The OM 85/2,
100/2.8, 135/2.8, 135/3.5, 180/2.8, 400/6.3, 1000/11, and 135/4.5
macro are all 5 element lenses with some pretty sharp ones in the
bunch. The incredibly sharp Oly Stylus Epic 2.8 is a 3 element. It is
all in the execution. People who used to pooh pooh swing axle rear
suspensions because of VW experience ignored the excellence of the
swing axle design in the Mercedes 300 gull wing coupes.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
?
< 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 >
|