Once again the venerable, although tragically flawed, 65-200/4 Zuiko is
mentioned. I used mine occasionally, right up until I was informed on this
here very List that many of them developed cloudy lens elements, rendering them
virtually useless for taking quality photographs. I grabbed mine, shone a
flashlight ("electric torch" for some of you) inside, and was horrified to see
the foggy bit of glass in the back end, looking for all the world like it had
been subjected to paint overspray, or maybe even hair spray. (Are there women
who still use that stuff? Surely, no men do.)
In any event, I stopped using mine immediately, put it way back on a shelf and
forgot about it. But, later, I began to wonder why the photographs I had taken
with it didn't seem to suffer from the fact it had become a worthless POS. I
shot a couple of test shots on film, posted right here that, despite its cloudy
element, it seemed to perform quite well and that I considered it all much ado
about nothing, then forgot about it again.
Today, I have taken this experimentation to another level, thanks to the ease
and immediacy of digital (besides which, it's free). Some of you, particularly
those who may have just spent big bucks on a 50-200DZ lens, may not want to
read further here. I am still a bit discombobulated by what I have found. I'm
sure I'll get over it, but this is all still quite surprising.
We're having some work done on the back of our property -- much of it to my
displeasure, which has resulted in some angry words and gestures, but that's a
story for another day. An hour or so ago, I set up a tripod on the deck and
fired off a series of shots with the E-1, 50-200DZ, and the old 65-200 Zuiko
with the cloudy element, both at 200mm and f/8, aimed at an idle Bobcat parked
down by the creek. Everything was shot RAW and each photograph had the exact
same very minimal post processing. I'll let you reach your own conclusions.
Full-frame establishing shot, made with the E-1 and 50-200DZ:
http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/media/192375/site1099.jpg
Crop of center portion of 50-200DZ shot:
http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/media/192375/site1100.jpg
Same crop of center portion of old, cloudy 65-200 Zuiko:
http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/media/192375/site1101.jpg
I'm not sure what to think about this. I do think, though, I need a nap before
I think about it any more.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Jeff Keller" <jrk_om@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> About the only Zuiko that will fall into the price range and focal length
> range of your RMC is the 70-150mm f4. It is a nice lens. I used one for many
> years.
>
> There are two lenses way up the price scale:
> 1.) Tamron SP 80-200 f2.8 (about $270) which is a great lens but big and
> heavy.
> 2.) Zuiko 50-250mm f5 (about $400) which is my favorite when weight is an
> issue.
>
> The other Zuiko choices for that focal range would be
> 1.) Zuiko 60-200mm f4 (about $160). Many/most of these develop a haze which
> ruins the lens. Otherwise a nice lens.
> 2.) Zuiko 80-250mm f5 (about$185). A little larger than other Zuikos but
> considered to be a very nice lens.
> 3.) Zuiko 100mm f2.8 + Zuiko 200mm f5 (each about $100). Ask AG if there is
> such a thing as a good silver nosed 100mm f2.8. ;-)
>
> Good luck,
> -jeff
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: Philip Pemberton <philpem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi,
> I'm looking for a lens to supplement my 50mm 1.8 Zuiko. I've already got
> the Tokina RMC 80-200 but the sticky aperture is back and I don't feel like
> fixing it again (especially seeing as the going rate for them on ebay seems
> to be about £20). Ideally I'm looking for another Zuiko, but I'm not fussy.
>
> Most of the stuff I do is landscapes and wildlife - birds, squirrels,
> whatever I find lurking around :)
>
> What would you guys suggest?
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Phil.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
