My 2cents:
Since you already have a world-class 90, a 135 sounds like a good choice to me.
I have had excellent results with my Zuiko 135/3.5. Although it's modestly
priced, it isn't not junk. If I had it to do over, I'd probably buy a
multi-coated 135/2.8. Do you already know about single-coatings vs.
multi-coatings?
There's a lot of agreement that the 200/5 is a honey of a lens, and since I
can't recommend the 200/4 I had, they're probably right.
You might also consider a zoom of 3rd party manufacture from the 80s. (While I
had very unsharp results from a 1973 Tamron 80-210 f/4.5, my 80s-era Kiron
80-200 f/4 is *much better.)
Gary's results were uh... less than enthusiastic about the 180/2.8 as I recall.
For general travel results, the Kiron is perfect for my occasional use in the
200mm range. If you're looking to do *serious* work in the 200mm range, the
Tamron 80-200 f/2.8 is highly regarded. Tom Scales has one for sale now but be
advised that it's a big lens that won't be happy bobbing off your neck for
long. It's more of a serious, tripod mounter from what I've read.
Lama
< 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 >
|