>
> BTW, it was taken with OM 200/4, not bad when you want to avoid the chroma
> of OM 180/2.8 :-)
>
I too, agree with the assessment of 1181. The 200/4 is probably one of those
"best kept secrets" of the OM system. As much as I've raved about the
100/2.8, the 200/4 is right up there for me. Some of my very best "macro"
shots continue to be taken with this lens.
I had a 200/4 that suffered from a broken element or two and was BER (beyond
economical repair). Before and after that point I had:
- 100-200/5 (dog breath lens)
- 200/5 (fine, but sloooooow)
- Soligor 200/2.8 (actually about F4 in real speed, a dog bone)
- Another 200/4
I'm definitely happily with my second 200/4. A silver-nosed speciman, it
does the job extremely well and I think it really shines on a digital body
even more than it does on an OM body. It balances extremely well and just
feels good. The focus ring tends to be a touch stiff (same issue as with
the 300/4.5), but it does stay put for long exposures and also when you are
pre-focusing on a point during auto-races.
The 200/4 is, in my opinion, a "must have" lens. No Olympus kit is complete
without it.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|