C.H.Ling wrote:
> From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx
>> Contrary to C.H.'s experience, Gary's tests showed the 200/4 to be quite
>> sharp, but only when properly supported/damped. I'm not sure even a bean bag
>> is adequate. Walt's beloved lead shot bag would be more certain.
> But according to Modern Photography, 200/4 is poorer than 100/2, 135/2.8 and
> 180/2.8 in resolution.
I have great respect for the Modern tests, although I don't have all of
those. On the other hand, I've found Gary's tests to be very good as well.
Aperture Center Corner Center Corner Center Corner Center Corner
Center Corner
200/4 135/2.8 180/2.8 -1 180/2.8
-2 100/2.0
---------------- ---------------- ----------------
---------------- ----------------
F/2.0 A A- B+ B
na na
f/2.8 B B- B+ B A- B+
B- B
f/4 B B- B B- B+ B+ A- A-
A A-
f/5.6 A- B+ A- B A- A- A A+
A A-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
f/8 A- B+ A- B B+ B+ A A
A A
f/11 A A- A B+ B+ B A+ A-
A A
f/16 A A- B+ B A- B+ A- A
A- A-
f/22 B+ B+ B B- A B+ A B+
B+ B+
f/32 B B-
The 200/4 is tested with the Bogen support. By Gary's significant
difference standards, these lenses are almost identical in ratings. At
least according to these rather careful tests, the 200/4 is the equal of
the others except for the 100/2 at f4, two stops down for the 100 and
wide open for the 200.
You can see significant appearing sample variation between the two
180/2.8 samples. How much sample variation affected the Modern tests and
your experience with your 200/4, I can't know. I do know that vibration
control made a huge difference in performance of the 200/4 in Gary's tests.
Understand, this is strictly web research on my part. Although I have
the two less expensive of these lenses, the 200/4 and 135/2.8, I've used
neither extensively. I'm a zoom sort of guy since before I acquired
those lenses and most images I've shot in that FL range were with Tamron
80-2002.8, Tokina 35-200 and Kiron 28-210 lenses or my first long zoom
in the 70-80s, a Tokina RMC 80-200/4.
More recently, I've only used primes in light kits with an OM-1, and
prefer the smaller, lighter 135/3.5 and 200/5.
> I never have confidence to use it with 2XA
Gary's test showed the 200/4 with 2XA, OM-4 with mirror/aperture prefire
and lens support to be quite decent, on a par with the 180/2.8 and 2XA.
> and only used once or twice in E-1, it was ok but not as sharp as other
> Zuikos.
>
This is a very interesting area. Have you read the dpreview tests of the
Canon and Nikon 70-200/2.8 lenses? VERY different results. The Canon
wins for FF, the Nikon for APS size sensor. Comparing lenses across
formats apparently isn't as easy as one might think. Results of the
200/4 on 4/3 format may or may not mean much for performance on FF film.
I'm not saying your experience isn't true, but that someone else, in
highly controlled tests, had different experiences.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|