Jim L'Hommedieu wrote:
What's your experience with the 200/4? When I did use it, I never came back
with a superbly
sharp picture like I always do with the 100/2.8........
You may have made a mistake that's easy to make if one is not a 'tele'
person. Somewhere between 100mm and 200mm, technical things change in
ways that require different techniques to get good pics. Pick up a 500mm
lens and it is immediately obvious that steadiness is a problem, but it
isn't obvious at 200mm; just seems like a bit more reach compred to a
100mm. Another thing that changes significantly without being obvious to
a SLR user with a 200mm who focuses at full aperture is the change in
DOF. An aperture that gave adequate DOF at 100mm may not do so with the
same subject at 200mm, because all those little 'circles of confusion'
have been magnified 2X. Successful tele use requires conscious attention
to tradeoffs of steadiness, shutter speed, aperture and film speed that
are quite different than those for 100mm and under lenses.
Without even taking into consideration issues of handholding, etc. take
a close look at Gary's extensive tests of the same 200/4 with different
combinations of cameras, mirror/aperture lockup/prefire, supports, etc.
Having an OM-1 CLAed may have made a difference! The exact same lens
varies from an average score of B+ to an average of C depending on
these external variables. So a person who uses this lens with proper
technique and well maintained equipment will likely find it a very good
performer while others will find varying degrees of lesser performance
that may appear random to them.
All these issues are there in plenty at 200mm, but may not be obvious
when using the lens the way they are with longer teles. Could the
200/4's (and f5's?) compact size, light weight and easy handling
actually contribute to poorer performance than is possible in the field?
It might explain some of the widely varying opinions about this lens by
different users.
Moose
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.
The 180/2.8 has a slightly lower (but not a statistically significant
difference) average resolution score than the 200/4 on Gary's tests. It
appears it's going to be heavier and harder to hand hold for about the
same performance unless you need the speed. The 180/2 is clearly a real
step up in performance.
Moose
< 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 >
|