Arguments have raged through the years about these lenses. Negative reactions
to Gary's tests of the 200/4 caused him to evaluate the effect of the OM-1's
aperture stopdown "kick" with longer lenses. He moved away from using the
OM-1 for test purposes about that time and also started using some additional
lens support in some cases. My former 200/4 certainly produced much better
images with additional lens support.
Joel W.
>===== Original Message From Andrew Gullen <andrew.gullen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> =====
>Don't tell me that! I heard the 200/5 was a bit of a dog and the 200/4 was
>fairly nice, so I just bought a 200/4.
>
>Gary Reese's tests seem to indicate an approximate draw, with perhaps an
>edge to the 200/4, though it may not be significant.
>
>Andrew
>
>> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:21:26 -0500
>> From: lamadoo@xxxxxxxx
>> ...
>> 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.
>
>
>< 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 >
< 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 >
|